imo ! weapons designed for HUNTING should be allowed, but military-grade HUMAN KILLING guns should be banned, this pretty much meaning FULL or SEMI automatic "high-power", high-capacity weapons, like assault rifles, submachine-guns and pistols. the more power with a smaller siz ejust makes it more dangerous and dangerous
Poll: There is no justifiable reason for civilians to own modern weapons.
- Thread starter HotFezz8
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So you're saying if I brought a gun to Britain, I could basically rob all of the stores and banks with little resistance? Yeah, come at me with that bat, and I'll remove your head.Simalacrum said:
Oh, boy. I can't wait for summer!
Sorry, but that's fucking bullshit.
You want to see no civilian ownership of guns, except old muzzle loaders?
For a start, muzzle loaders are still quite capable of killing someone, thank you very much. Hence why they were used in warfare across the globe for several hundred years...
Secondly, you may be helping to prevent firearms accidents (muzzle loaders are probably more accident prone than modern fire arms anyway), but you are not preventing gun crime. If someone wants a gun bad enough they'll get one on the black market.
Additionally, guns are fun. There are millions of gun owners in your country who enjoy target shooting, hunting, sport/ competition shooting, gun collecting, or just plain tinkering about with guns. You get rid of guns, you remove hobbies, occupations and lifestyles.
In my country the gun laws are fairly strict, but one can still get hold guns with the right paperwork and credentials, and get all the enjoyment you want out of them. Sure, we're not allowed semi-auto rifles like you chaps over the pond are *sadface*, but hey, it's probably for the best. Slightly tighter gun control is one thing, but making them illegal?! No fucking way.
Edit: Poll result makes me sads
Edit 2:
You want to see no civilian ownership of guns, except old muzzle loaders?
For a start, muzzle loaders are still quite capable of killing someone, thank you very much. Hence why they were used in warfare across the globe for several hundred years...
Secondly, you may be helping to prevent firearms accidents (muzzle loaders are probably more accident prone than modern fire arms anyway), but you are not preventing gun crime. If someone wants a gun bad enough they'll get one on the black market.
Additionally, guns are fun. There are millions of gun owners in your country who enjoy target shooting, hunting, sport/ competition shooting, gun collecting, or just plain tinkering about with guns. You get rid of guns, you remove hobbies, occupations and lifestyles.
In my country the gun laws are fairly strict, but one can still get hold guns with the right paperwork and credentials, and get all the enjoyment you want out of them. Sure, we're not allowed semi-auto rifles like you chaps over the pond are *sadface*, but hey, it's probably for the best. Slightly tighter gun control is one thing, but making them illegal?! No fucking way.
Edit: Poll result makes me sads
Edit 2:
Incorrect. We do have guns, just not handguns and assault rifles. They can be obtained with relative ease if you have a clean criminal record, correct security fittings and people to certify to the police that you are not insane. The police do carry guns, but only in special armed units, with the appropriate training. Armed police exist here, but only when they are needed, kind of like rapid response/ SWAT style.Simalacrum said:
Here's a protip
Criminals use guns.
Where do criminals get guns from in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, England, Australia?
Hunting licenses, illegal imports, smuggling, killing cops.
Where do criminals get guns from in USA?
Wal Mart, K Mart or your local Mom & Pop
Criminals use guns.
Where do criminals get guns from in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, England, Australia?
Hunting licenses, illegal imports, smuggling, killing cops.
Where do criminals get guns from in USA?
Wal Mart, K Mart or your local Mom & Pop
Holy shit, put something more than "Yes" "More yes" "No" "More no" as your poll answers. This topic requires alot more than that.
Why not try the chris rock approach and try bullet control instead of gun control. Youtube it. funny shit.
But seriously, Aussies have gun laws and restrictions. You can still get firearms as a civilian, but need a license, which is actually quite hard to get and not given out like candy because of a constitution which is flawed in the modern environment.
Number of University/School Massacres in Oz = 0. I think we've had one incident.
Number of University/School Massacres in USA > 1. > 1 is too much.
People shot in Australia so far this year = 500 (500 per 21 million people)
People shot in USA so far this year = 82,650 (or 5500 per 21 million people)
But seriously, Aussies have gun laws and restrictions. You can still get firearms as a civilian, but need a license, which is actually quite hard to get and not given out like candy because of a constitution which is flawed in the modern environment.
Number of University/School Massacres in Oz = 0. I think we've had one incident.
Number of University/School Massacres in USA > 1. > 1 is too much.
People shot in Australia so far this year = 500 (500 per 21 million people)
People shot in USA so far this year = 82,650 (or 5500 per 21 million people)
Did you notice that for pretty much every Western country on that list--including the US--more than 50% (and as high as 90+%) of gun-related deaths were a result of suicide? I submit that if they didn't have access to guns, most of those people would still be dead, having found some other means to commit suicide.The Hairminator said:
Or maybe they would be dead from a car crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions]). Auto collisions seem to kill far more people in most countries than guns do, yet the only people clamouring to ban autos are the more extreme environmentalists.
I'm a suburban Canadian, but I'm opposed to banning civilians from owning guns. First of all, the death and murder rate in rural areas is far lower than in the cities, and yet more of the law-abiding gun owners are there. It's unjust for a bunch of city-dwellers to enact laws that punish rural residents for no good reason. Especially when the gun problem in the cities is almost 100% caused by illegally-possessed firearms.
I'm not opposed to mandatory training and licensing to own a weapon, just like you need to pass a test and get licensed to drive a car, which we do here in Canada. And I'm not necessarily opposed to registering firearms--the Liberal government botched such a process last time they were in power through wasteful spending, but the idea has merit. I don't see much benefit in registering long guns (rifles and shotguns) when maybe less than 10 murders a year nationwide involve one, but registering handguns and semi-auto weapons, I have no problem with.
honestly, everyone has the right to own a gun. and the only problem is when stupid people get guns.
i mean, if you literally have no idea how to use a gun or be safe with one, or keep it in a safe place, you are the one who has no right to own it.
if you plan on getting a gun, do some homework first, be smart.
if there werent idiots getting guns, it wouldnt be a problem.
and banning guns will never stop the criminals from getting them.
so trying to stop criminals from getting guns would be a much harder task, that i personally dont ever see happening, yeah it sucks, but i feel more comfortable knowing i have my guns in case the Sh*t hits the fan.
i mean, if you literally have no idea how to use a gun or be safe with one, or keep it in a safe place, you are the one who has no right to own it.
if you plan on getting a gun, do some homework first, be smart.
if there werent idiots getting guns, it wouldnt be a problem.
and banning guns will never stop the criminals from getting them.
so trying to stop criminals from getting guns would be a much harder task, that i personally dont ever see happening, yeah it sucks, but i feel more comfortable knowing i have my guns in case the Sh*t hits the fan.
So the fact that its in the consititution isnt a valid argument, YES IT IS, theres your valid argument. Its made to keep the government in check when it goes ary (sp?). Also the fact that people need to protect themselves just doesnt come into play.
And there is no such thing as accidents, its stupidity. Therefor if your stupid then you shouldnt have a gun. like that 8 year old, the ONLY way he could have died from that Uzi (which the article never really defined how he died, just said that he did) is either, it was on full auto which is illegal and and 8 year old can't handle it anyway. He was pointing it at himself. It blew up from a jam, which is VERY rare. Or he wasnt using it properly, aka not using the foldable stock since he can't controle it on its normal T grip fasion.
So guns should be allowed no matter what, stupid people however shouldnt be allowed.
And there is no such thing as accidents, its stupidity. Therefor if your stupid then you shouldnt have a gun. like that 8 year old, the ONLY way he could have died from that Uzi (which the article never really defined how he died, just said that he did) is either, it was on full auto which is illegal and and 8 year old can't handle it anyway. He was pointing it at himself. It blew up from a jam, which is VERY rare. Or he wasnt using it properly, aka not using the foldable stock since he can't controle it on its normal T grip fasion.
So guns should be allowed no matter what, stupid people however shouldnt be allowed.
Funny, just saw a film about something related to this, and I don't think that us normal mongrels should poke around with a bloody gun and point it at silly people.
For the first, if a burglar breaks in, you didn't lock up properly.
For the second, if a burglar's inside use the traps you set up before going to bed, duh.
For the third, if you have a sword under your bed the damn pillow fighter will withdraw fast.
For the fourth, if he's got a gun, call the police and throw things at him, or stall.
For the fifth, Canada have like a arseload of guns, their gun related murder is way lower.
For the first, if a burglar breaks in, you didn't lock up properly.
For the second, if a burglar's inside use the traps you set up before going to bed, duh.
For the third, if you have a sword under your bed the damn pillow fighter will withdraw fast.
For the fourth, if he's got a gun, call the police and throw things at him, or stall.
For the fifth, Canada have like a arseload of guns, their gun related murder is way lower.
You want to lower crime? Put a gun in every (non-criminal) house. How many break-ins do you think there will be if there is a gun in every house(since the chances of a criminal getting shot just spiked)? Now if an 8-year-old shoots himself, that is the owner's and his fault.
So...there is this thing called The Black Market. People use it to buy illegal things, like guns. Aside from that, this will not fly in America.The Hairminator said:
Sure... people don't need guns... they don't need cars either... or houses, you know... we could all just live on the streets...
Its acually better to have an assult rife than a shotgun, why? its one hell of a lot more accurat. Now if your talking full auto assult rifles then im with you on that. But you also have to remeber there are full auto pistols too...Pingieking said:
I have a few links for you guys. These videos are a bit long, but at least after watching them, you will know the actual terminology and will know what "high powered" really means.
Brotip1: You guys buy into media and government scares WAY to easily.
Brotip2: No such thing as assault weapons. They are a made up term that describes NOTHING technical, only BIG BLACK SCARY COP KILLING BABY EATING VOODOO RIFLES.
How cartridge sizes ACTUALLY work. AK47's are much weaker than any hunting rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw
How easy it is to confuse Semi autos and Full autos. (NO SUCH THING AS ASSAULT RIFLE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Obligatory Penn & Teller: Bullshit on Gun control. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE&feature=PlayList&p=670EC103F2F97CD7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18
News program specials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg
If you choose not to watch these videos and at least SLIGHTLY educate yourselves, that's fine, but DO NOT parade around, spewing ignorance and lies when you don't know what you're talking about.
Brotip1: You guys buy into media and government scares WAY to easily.
Brotip2: No such thing as assault weapons. They are a made up term that describes NOTHING technical, only BIG BLACK SCARY COP KILLING BABY EATING VOODOO RIFLES.
How cartridge sizes ACTUALLY work. AK47's are much weaker than any hunting rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw
How easy it is to confuse Semi autos and Full autos. (NO SUCH THING AS ASSAULT RIFLE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Obligatory Penn & Teller: Bullshit on Gun control. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE&feature=PlayList&p=670EC103F2F97CD7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18
News program specials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg
If you choose not to watch these videos and at least SLIGHTLY educate yourselves, that's fine, but DO NOT parade around, spewing ignorance and lies when you don't know what you're talking about.
Seconded, there is no reason for a fully automatic weapon. Of course i can fire some assult faster on semi auto just by tappping the trigger really really fast. But still, full autos are not needed. nukes however...Macgyvercas said:
we merely have a high knife crime rate; which are much harder to stop sales because a bread knife or other kitchen based knife can still be quite dangerous. Although I personally feel harsher sentences need to be put on those carrying knives.Simalacrum said:
The problem with that is some may just carry for protection and not aim to harm anyone; although should they get a criminal record for the "greater good" as it were
...what? How does that... what brought you to this conclusion, exactly?iJosh said:
That's true. I guess it's just one of those things that doesn't work either way you look at it.Cid SilverWing said:
Let us examine the issue for a moment.
Banning guns only affects the law-abiding citizen directly.
The complaint is that law-abiding citizens should not have access to firearms. This is for two reasons.
1. There are previously law-abiding citizens who will buy a gun legally, and then go crazy and begin killing people.
2. There are retarded parents who allow minors to use or have access to firearms.
The argument becomes that guns should be taken from all citizens, regardless of intent or use, for the fear that they may be one of the two reasons listed above.
This is an illogical argument. For three reasons.
1. The people who go crazy, are not predictable. The assumption is that only citizens can go crazy and start killing people. In fact, military personel and police, go crazy and are just as deadly as their citizen counterpart. Also, a person who is insane, does not need a gun to kill people.
2. Retarded parents exist whether they have firearms or not. The children will always suffer the consequences of the parents stupidity to inadequately protect their children. In example, the same parent who does not protect their child from a firearm, will not protect them from injury by car or any other device. They do not watch their children to ensure safety, nor do they instruct their children on the dangerous.
3. The amount of people who go crazy, or are retarded parents, is VERY, VERY, small in comparison to the amount of people who are sane, and not retarded. In essence, the amount of gun deaths is a mere fraction of the people who actually own guns.
It is illogical to remove a legal right from an entire population based on the actions of a small, unpredictable, amount of people.
A logical argument would require the banning of guns for all people- criminals, military, citizens, and police. However, this cannot happen as the military will always need guns, and criminals will always have access to guns.
Given that there are two groups in a logical argument that will always have guns, the issue then becomes, are these the only people we want to have guns?
1. The criminal is an obvious no. However, criminals will always have access to guns, as long as guns continue to be manufactured anywhere in the world. So, then we must ask ourselves, is it logical for criminals to be the only people with guns? No.
2. The military is trained in the use of guns and controlled by the government, and would seem to be a logical choice for the only group being allowed to have guns. However, logic and history indicates that when one group of people have access to a deadly technology, it will inevitablly be used against the groups of people who do not have that technology. So, then the question becomes, should the government be trusted to not take advantage of the technology? Again, history and logic echo a resounding no.
Either everyone has guns, or no one has guns. This is the only logical answer. Since technology and society allows for the manufacture of guns across the world; and it is impossible to forcefully remove guns, from people with guns, without using guns yourself; then the only logical conclusion is that all people should have access to guns, and those that abuse guns should be restricted.
This is something that the founding fathers of America recognized. As a result, it was written into law. Unfortunately, because a small amount of people are missed by the restrictions, some members of society have decided that logic should be abandoned because it is emotionally painful to recognize that not everyone is responsible, or sane.
Banning guns only affects the law-abiding citizen directly.
The complaint is that law-abiding citizens should not have access to firearms. This is for two reasons.
1. There are previously law-abiding citizens who will buy a gun legally, and then go crazy and begin killing people.
2. There are retarded parents who allow minors to use or have access to firearms.
The argument becomes that guns should be taken from all citizens, regardless of intent or use, for the fear that they may be one of the two reasons listed above.
This is an illogical argument. For three reasons.
1. The people who go crazy, are not predictable. The assumption is that only citizens can go crazy and start killing people. In fact, military personel and police, go crazy and are just as deadly as their citizen counterpart. Also, a person who is insane, does not need a gun to kill people.
2. Retarded parents exist whether they have firearms or not. The children will always suffer the consequences of the parents stupidity to inadequately protect their children. In example, the same parent who does not protect their child from a firearm, will not protect them from injury by car or any other device. They do not watch their children to ensure safety, nor do they instruct their children on the dangerous.
3. The amount of people who go crazy, or are retarded parents, is VERY, VERY, small in comparison to the amount of people who are sane, and not retarded. In essence, the amount of gun deaths is a mere fraction of the people who actually own guns.
It is illogical to remove a legal right from an entire population based on the actions of a small, unpredictable, amount of people.
A logical argument would require the banning of guns for all people- criminals, military, citizens, and police. However, this cannot happen as the military will always need guns, and criminals will always have access to guns.
Given that there are two groups in a logical argument that will always have guns, the issue then becomes, are these the only people we want to have guns?
1. The criminal is an obvious no. However, criminals will always have access to guns, as long as guns continue to be manufactured anywhere in the world. So, then we must ask ourselves, is it logical for criminals to be the only people with guns? No.
2. The military is trained in the use of guns and controlled by the government, and would seem to be a logical choice for the only group being allowed to have guns. However, logic and history indicates that when one group of people have access to a deadly technology, it will inevitablly be used against the groups of people who do not have that technology. So, then the question becomes, should the government be trusted to not take advantage of the technology? Again, history and logic echo a resounding no.
Either everyone has guns, or no one has guns. This is the only logical answer. Since technology and society allows for the manufacture of guns across the world; and it is impossible to forcefully remove guns, from people with guns, without using guns yourself; then the only logical conclusion is that all people should have access to guns, and those that abuse guns should be restricted.
This is something that the founding fathers of America recognized. As a result, it was written into law. Unfortunately, because a small amount of people are missed by the restrictions, some members of society have decided that logic should be abandoned because it is emotionally painful to recognize that not everyone is responsible, or sane.