~Guns~

[Xebi]

Actualy I'm pretty sure most people would say against, but I had a liberatair.... thingey... something of a view towards political.
Who was really FOR everyone owning a gun, and so far I couldn't get him to change his mind.

But what are your views on guns?

I live in holland, its not really a gun-country as far as I know, and I live there so that should say something about the owning of guns here.

I've been on target practice with real guns, I found it rather interesting as a hobby, but I quit it after a few month's... don't ask, I'm still wondering why I did, thinking of re-joining.

But our country doesn't has that much with guns, the yearly death by fire arms here would probably be very small.

If there is to be a death, it mostly gets in the front page of the news, papers etc.
Probably something like america, but we do not center it as action, rather as a shock, that such violence is still comitted here.

We mostly have a memorial moment all over our country for that/those deaths.

This topic came from the idea of seeing the documentary from Michael Moore, so yeah I guess that explains a bit.

And when they came to the part of Canada, a country where most people don't even lock their doors? people can walk straight into eachothers homes.
There has been 1 or 2 deaths in 3 years of time (from the time of that documentary)
I was really suprised... sounded like a heaven, somewhere I would want to live :eek:

And as that liberatair guy said to me: if everyone had a gun it'd be a lot safer.
he lives in america, the country with the most guns, the country with the biggest death by fire arms, that more guns doesn't mean a safer enviroment.

But in canada you can buy guns/ammo in alot of places, yet violence there is so rare.

Anyway, I'm putting up a whole story here, were loosing the main point of the topic.
What is your point of view on guns?

I don't want to see people flaming that people are for guns, or that people are against guns.
I want to see a serious and normal discussion, feel free to disagree and tell them why, but don't go flaming.

[S&T Kawaii Love]

I am all for guns. How else are you going to blow of the heads of these islamic terrorists?! who want to turn the west into hell. We got war with them for thousands of years. The only thing what works is force, just like again what happened in iraq. Sorry going off topic. Don't expect the goverment and police to do anything. They only release the subjects, well in your friendly multicultural neighbourhood Holland that is. Where people from free speech get shot. Come on xebi you know what I talk about. The law sucks in holland.

[Xebi]

and thats exactly why I'm against guns, to prevent those problems, fights, wars from happening in the first place.

But at this point do admit being a bit hypocritical.
I am for a better world, but at the other hand...
probably declared crazy if I'd say what I'd be about to say.

[Atachi]

[...] who want to turn the west into hell. We got war with them for thousands of years. [...]you remember who started that war? it were the christians several hundreds years ago ^^

-edit-
and as topicreleated:
im against weapons... like about 95% of all europeans... we know why: we had 2 worldwars, no need for a third ^^

[Fanin]

Domestically, I'm against guns. 'The US has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations'
Every so often, you can see gun deaths in the news. Sometimes, I wonder is it really that easy to kill other people. Anyway, it's crazy here.

[chompy]

I am all for guns. How else are you going to blow of the heads of these islamic terrorists?!
hmmm...

I am FAIRLY sure i couldn't disagree with you on this statement more than I already do. seriously.


who want to turn the west into hell. We got war with them for thousands of years. The only thing what works is force, just like again what happened in iraq. Sorry going off topic. Don't expect the goverment and police to do anything.

i am sure your "opinions" are greatly influenced by the fascist media, and this disheartens. my own view, is that people who propogate idea's like this are f*cking dangerous, and need to be stopped.


They only release the subjects, well in your friendly multicultural neighbourhood Holland that is. Where people from free speech get shot. Come on xebi you know what I talk about. The law sucks in holland.

JFK.

My opinions on guns, are plain and simply, No.

they are uneccecary and highly unfortunate. it is one of the worst disasters in the history of humanity that they exist at all. 'control' shouldn't even be an issue.

concerning the michael moore documentary Bowling for Columbine:

the conclusion i drew from that film, was that quite simply, the problem in america with guns and deaths is spawned from the belligerent and panic ridden nature of the people, which is caused by media influences, such as the level of fear driven advertising, news and such. also the politicians, and the whole overprotectiveness of "america the brave" from the patriot folk...exercising their "right" to bear arms. nuclear or otherwise.

[Bubblemonkey]

Oh man...do we really need to go into this AGAIN? The last time we tried to discuss this, things got pretty heated - no one changed their minds about it and people just got butt hurt about it.

In case you're interested, here's what happened last time...

Firearms to all?? Thread (http://www.hongfire.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19833)

Getting into another fruitless shouting match (it isn't really a debate or even an argument any more since no one is going to change their minds about it) just seems kind of pointless (not that I won't jump in every once in a while - they can be kind of fun sometimes).

[Draco888]

It depends......I'm verry strong AGAINST guns in the hands of private persons !!!!
The police (and army) should be the only ones to have guns period !
Guns in private hands kill more innocents then they supposedly save.......

I dont mind people using guns for the hunt or practice shooting, like Xebi..... But the guns should be always returned/kept by the police !

There are already a couple of places like this in my country...where a gunclub and the local police have adjoining houses....this way its EZ to have the police controll the guns and make sure thieves dont steal em (some clubs actually got permission to save their guns in the police's armory)
This also benefits the police who can train shooting right there, instead of driving a lot of miles to a police-shootingrange.....

[Maria Renard]

guns dont kill humans by itselves..

its always another person holding it, so... think in that...

Gao~!

[ChibiFirli]

I kinda agree with bubblemonkey :p, we probably won't have a nice and clean debate :D. But I'll try anyway :D.

It is a fact that gun deaths are kinda high in the US, but that doesn't really prove much. Even the fact that there are more violent deaths in the US doesn't really prove much. Estonia for example has much higher rates. Not that I know anything about Estonia though. I just want to point out that guns aren't the only reason for homocide. At most they could increase the chance of a random citizen killing someone in a fit of rage, or "maybe" help a criminal get a gun easier. On the other hand they could also help to prevent crimes. So actually it's got both good and bad sides, as most things in life.

chart of violent deaths and gun deaths and stuff in several countries (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html)

Some study trying to compare death caused by gun ownership and death prevented by gun ownership. (http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm)I think this proves how difficult it is to really compare.

A pro-gun article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html), please just read the part on how a lot of studies play with numbers to prove their point :D. The other part is just playing with numbers to make gun ownership seem acceptable. I thought the most important part of the article was the one were they said a lot of countries could be used either pro or contra gun ownership.

Well, anyway, think about it and play nice in this thread :p.

[Bubblemonkey]

Throwing out statistics is kinda pointless in this case since (like you and the article states) "studies play with numbers to prove their point". Several people threw out statistics in the last thread and the people on the opposing side were able to find serious faults with it and vise versa (I think two of the ones you site Chibi were brought up in the last thread). We can throw out 50 pro gun studies and 50 anti-gun studies, all with their own statistical studies, and both sides will have studies that make absolutely perfect sense withing the context of the study. They could even be using the same numbers, but spun to make their view look valid. They don't mean anything in the real world, though, since statistics can never accurately depict the outcome of a hypothetical situation of this magnitude.

Who knows how the Japanese will react if guns were suddenly made legal? Who knows how Americans will react if guns were suddenly illegal? Violent crime might rise the first year and progessively fall the following year or vise versa or it might just rise until the only Americans left are criminals.

The point is, throwing out statistics doesn't make any difference to this "debate" since people who are for or against something will be able to find the weaknesses of any statistic that is thrown at them and they aren't viable predictions of what would happen if these hypothetical situations were to occur.

[Desmonthes]

i like guns and weapons, they are beautiful, some of them look like an artwork to me :)
Weapon itself can't kill people, only people kill peole.
Sometime I wonder how far human mind could do it, first we invent weapon to protect ourseleves from nature, then to portect ourselves from other human, next we want it better so we could kill human more efficient, next maybe we want to invent weapon that can destroy a planet (we may have it already :p not those nuclear thingies)

[ChibiFirli]

@ bubblemonkey: I don't know whether you're either kinda agreeing with me, or I just didn't make a very clear post (I tend to make unclear posts :D:p).

Anyway, what I wanted to make clear: we have no reliable facts to base us on. There are good and bad consequences for both gun banning and gun legalisation. But we have no reliable statistics about the quantific effect these consequences. Hence we cannot even try to compare.

[Bubblemonkey]

@ bubblemonkey: I don't know whether you're either kinda agreeing with me, or I just didn't make a very clear post (I tend to make unclear posts :D:p).

Anyway, what I wanted to make clear: we have no reliable facts to base us on. There are good and bad consequences for both gun banning and gun legalisation. But we have no reliable statistics about the quantific effect these consequences. Hence we cannot even try to compare.
Hahaha. I was agreeing with you. Just had to put in my 2 cents on the issue before we get bombarded by one statistic after another once the shouting match begins :eek: . Sorry about the unclear nature of the post (I'm the same way, only I use a helluva lot more words - I'm making it up as I go along, so I tend to ramble).

Side Note: Really OT, but I just noticed I moved "up" in my rep status from "jewel in the rough" to "...is just really nice". Does that sound like a step back to anyone else but me? :confused: I'm a "jewel" and then I'm "just nice". Kinda like "we're going out" to "we're just friends". Sorry. Just thought it was weird and thought I'd share. Carry on.

[[UNKNOWN]]

well, xebi, I lived in Canada and I can tell you it's not all smiles and sunshine. Less guns means less people get gunned down, but people have killed other people since the dawn of time and if they don't use guns then they just use something else.
A gun is the easiest way of killing someone so I suppose it is slightly safer for a society to not have them easily accessible, as it deters many people from crime.

[alucard81]

I generally do not like the idea of the general public having guns in their homes, their glove in their car, or worse their side pocket. I do know that a few newer regulations have gone in on the sale of automatic weapons and high powered rifles. But the thing is letting ppl own these weapons is just not a good idea, every single human being has a breaking point where they just go berserk and they will do things that they regret once they calm down.... and do not forget how many accidents happened with regards to cases of misunderstandings resulting in ppl getting seriously injured or killed by another. If u insist on having one fine, a pistol of a low calibre would suffice, no shot guns, no rifles and definitely no automatic weapons.
(recalls the last episode of The Shield I saw, a van carrying a whole lot of ammo caught fire.... i guess u guys can figure out wat happened >_< )

[Sturmwulf]

I will admit that I am a gun owner and that I do like the right to own them. I enjoy target shooting as a recreational activity. As for gun control, I have nothing against having regulations on owning them. When it comes to weaponry, there should be some sort of regulation. Unfortunately, no matter if it is legal or illegal to own or buy firearms, a criminal will most of the time be able to get one because they really aren't going to go legally buy it anyways. So, making it illegal to own wouldn't stop them, but, it would make it more difficult to obtain. When it comes to guns and violent crime, if someone wants to kill another person, they will try to kill them regardless of whether they have a firearm or not. They will end up using whatever weapon they have available. I am not ignorant to the fact that the firearm does make it quite a bit easier to do, partly due to the intimidation factor fireams have, so that resistance is less likely, and the ease of the act. So I guess I pretty much fall as a pro-firearm as well as a pro-firearm regulation. This is my opinion on this, but, I can see the points that the anti-firearm people have as well. It comes down to the responsible firearms owners paying the price for all of the irresponsible firearms owners. I think there should be a minimum IQ to own a firearm. :D

[Rigby]

I would rather we did have guns lest the people of the USA be under rule from a monster. The state milita is the people of the united states. Think about it, the USA can only be reached from the air and sea. We dont really need an army or marine corp for defense, we only need a more capable border patrol, better swat teams, and more capable emergency services.

Personally I want to go into target shooting with a 9mm or .45 pistol.

Oh and an old worn out addage. Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

[Hitokiri|cMi]

Woo Hoo...A topic I can sink my teeth into...as I follow a person name Alucard. lol :D

I live in Oklahoma, a place that has a "Concealed to Carry" (CtC) license for gun owners, which I have. Basically I only have 5 guns:

A Rifle - Russian Mosin Nagant 91/30 Sniper. It's the rifle used by Russian during WW2. Accurate as hell and still knocks down the targets at the range with quite a lot of force.

A Shotgun - Remington 12 gauge pump shotgun. Basically for clay pidgeon shooting. I participate in a couple of the local competitions for it.

3 Handguns - A Sig Sauer p220s .45 ACP which is basically a 45 caliber target pistol. The next one is a Fabrique Nationale FN 5.7x28 which is a great small gun for my CtC and is acutally made in Europe (specifically Belgium). And the grand daddy of them all my Desert Eagle .50 caliber. When they were talking about a boom stick, this is the weapon. First time i fired it, I thought I dislocated my shoulder.

Now I know what you're thinking, probably something along the lines of "Damn cowboy needs his guns to feel like a man." Not really. I have fired things when i was in the military that far exceed these small arms. When I say I have a gun in my car for protection, It literally is just that, for protection. When I lived in Kansas City I came about 2 inches from being car jacked. At that time i had approximately $3000 worth of computer parts for a job that I was doing up there for my company.

But to be honest with you guys, the main reason I own these guns is that I like to go shooting. It relieves my stress in a way that is really just a base instinct. I am hurting no one, and I enjoy the accomplishment when i hit a skeet or get a nice grouping on a target. Do I hunt? Nope. Do I keep my guns in a safe place and locked? Yes, because my neice and nephew come and visit me all the time. When my nephew is 10 I am going to take him down to the range and teach him to shoot my nagant sniper. Why? Because I would rather him be confident and knowledgable around guns if he's over at someone elses house that has them, but doesn't take the precautions that I do. Do I believe in gun control? Yes. I have no reason to own an automatic weapon. I'd like to have an HK MP5 Navy, but at no time would it be practical or useful to me. BTW...the crime rate has dropped by a good 25% since the CtC license went live in OK and now our CtC carries over to Kansas, Texas, and soon Missouri and Louisiana. Do I think everyone needs a gun? No, but I also believe not everyone needs a computer. :D

[dots]

These days everything seems to be settled by violence... U dun like someone...
BANG and it's over... u dun like school, bring a gun to school and BANG BANG BANG...
it's over too....
If u still dun get me.. i dun like guns...

BTW... hey S and T... your new location is damn funny...
i just woke up and i saw your post... and then i tot...
WTH... S and T's reps turned into hearts..
only a moment later did i notice it's your location...

[seorang]

I don't agree with guns. Other than the police and armed forces, nobody else should have guns.

I know that there are lots of mature and responsible gun owners out there. Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If people want to kill each other, they don't need guns, but having guns makes killing people alot easier.

[Neo Zeed]

Even though I believe the gun killed off honor and I'm not fond of the gun (though yes they are neat somehow)... I have to come to their defense in this area. I believe one should be allowed to carry any weapon they so desire. I'd like to be allowed to carry my swords with me everywhere without being arrested. But that aside... I believe that in places where the citizens have guns the crime rates are usually less then those in places without them.

When guns are outlawed then who are the ones with all the guns? The answer is... the outlaws who don't obey laws to begin with. Criminals love it when a population has no defenses (and sorry but police don't offer a sufficient deterrence and they should not be relied on). One should defend themselves instead of having to turn to our cowardly enforcers (I have no respect for cops).

[Chat Le Blanc]

guns dont kill humans by itselves..

its always another person holding it, so... think in that...

Gao~!
Your very right in that, I won't hold you that.
But a gun is 1 pow, and the person is death, this way he won't have a chance to rethink about the situation once its pulled.
While with other weapons, sure its about the same way but it won't cause straight dead, you have to aproach the person, attack the person, and it mostly turns out in a wounded fight rather than a death.

Anyway I still couldn't agree more that its the people that kill.

[Bubblemonkey]

Like I said in the other thread, I don't have that much of an issue with responsible, mature, and properly trained people possessing pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns for use in hunting and personal protection. While I wish it wasn't necessary, taking away every person's firearms probably would lead to a higher crime rate (at least initially) since there'd be a new power imbalance. What I don't understand is how people can defend their "right" to possess assault rifles and other weaponry that you'd typically associate with straight up warfare.

Other than the whole "my gun (phallus) is bigger than yours" macho thing, the only reasonable uses for assault rifles are at a gun range, and as a collector's display item (both of which provide absolutely no benefit for society in general). You wouldn't use it for hunting and using an AK-47 to take down a common burglar is just plain overkill (not to mention the fact that there seems to be a greater possibility of bystanders getting hit with stray shots). While I believe people should have the ability to protect themselves with pistols, rifles, and shotguns (if properly trained - I can't stress that enough), anything larger than that is just unreasonable. Why not go with a bazooka or get a chaingun mounted on your front porch while you're at it?

Right now, the criminal element can get assault weapons through several channels: legally (it doesn't matter how many checks, how long it takes or how much paper work is involved - as long as the guy's clean to start with, he can get one), off of the black market, or by stealing them directly from dealers and collectors. If assault weapons were banned across the board, then two of the methods of acquiring these would eliminated which would undoubtably lead to fewer criminals armed as if they were going to war - only those with the special means to would be able to acquire them.

Keeping assault weapons legal for the general public has absolutely no benefit for society as a whole. It just helps the criminals become more dangerous. Banning them could greatly reduce the number of assault weapons in circulation and makes it easier for the authorities to crack down on them (no need for them to worry if the AK-47s being shipped in that there crate are legally owned by anyone since they'd all be illegal anyway). Pistols are for protection, rifles and shotguns are for hunting and personal protection, assault rifles are for waging war - it's as simple as that. Considering how dangerous assault rifles are when compared to the other fire arms, I think giving up the right to own one is a fair price to pay for the general safety of society as a whole.

NOTE: Before I get the angry screamers again about the criminals running wild, I said GENERAL public. That means non-police, non-military personnel. Of course the police and military forces should have access to whatever firepower they need since it's part and parcel with the job - Joe "Mini-van Driving" Accountant who lives in Main Street suburbia doesn't have that excuse.

That said, I've probably just opened myself up for lengthy rebuttals by the gun fanatics out there who don't see anything wrong with owning a fully functional sherman tank in their backyard, but I expect that. If you seriously believe that having a rifle that (if modified) can pump 30 bullets into a person in less than a second is absolutely necessary, than there's no way I'd be able to convince you otherwise because, frankly, I reeeeally don't understand the way your brain works.

[Montra]

I want to rectify some false information.

you remember who started that war? it were the christians several hundreds years ago

That's not true. Please don't start people telling the wrong things. There was some kind of treaty to not attack buildings and citizens in Jeruzalem :p. It where the muslims who started this war by destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to be exact. The original building was destroyed on October 18, 1009, by the "mad" Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr. Besides that muslims started to not let any western pilgrims near the holy land.

[Renzon]

Gun control. Hmm...how does it work? In my opinion gun control is as empty a concept as prohibition was.

You can do no more about guns getting to the streets than the government was able to stop bootleggers from peddling their alcohol. Even Cuban cigars continuously get into this country everyday unless they changed the rules. Journalists can bring home a small box, if I'm not mistaken, of Cubans and not be jailed for it. Politicians, the very people that help make our laws and put a trade embargo on Cuba, are able to get their hands on Cuban cigars without any problems.

As for mature, responsible people:

Mature, responsible people can quickly become irrational fools. I'm reminded of a very nice quote from the first Men In Black movie:

"A person is smart; people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

People get off for performing crimes of passion here in the states. Imagine a case of road rage if both members had a gun and their first instinct was to reach for it. It'll be the old west all over again and frankly I despise their brand of "fighting". Revenge killing will come back and if you happened to look at someone the wrong way they'd be in the right to shoot you dead right on the spot.

Frankly, if trained professionals (i.e. cops - who get no respect from me because they get off because they hold badges) can be driven to fire 41 shots at a lone individual when they have him cornered (two out of the four officers reloading), I don't put much faith in the average citizen controlling with a gun in their possession.

[DarkDweller]

I dont have a problem with guns its normally the people who is holding the gun I have a problem with. Over here you have untrained unskilled people who dont even know what a gun is that is carrying a gun, for what?

Illegal guns are a problem once again here where i live its a big problem. Another thing is here if you shoot someone who was endangering your life your in shit but take a sword chop of his head and your safe. WTF.

Anyway I dont have a major problem with guns but they can become a problem

[S&T Kawaii Love]

they are uneccecary and highly unfortunate. it is one of the worst disasters in the history of humanity that they exist at all. 'control' shouldn't even be an issue.


Oh my. Welcome to the real world. There is nothing you could have done.
Guns would have been invented somewhere in evolution anyway. Because of our survival against ourselves and nature. It's great if we could live happily in peace without weapons. But that's not the case. At least not now. Besides that there are countless of things which are weapons knifes, pencils, saw, cars etc.




i am sure your "opinions" are greatly influenced by the fascist media,
and this disheartens. my own view, is that people who propogate idea's like this
are f*cking dangerous, and need to be stopped.

Yes your really peacefull aren't you. I hope for you that's not an treat.

First respect others their opinion. Your not supporting freedom of speech. I say whatever I want and to whoever I want.
Second you are a moron who didn't read my post carefully
Third stop labelling me and other people (you leftish people are very good at that) , or I slap you (because no one says that to me).

If it wasn't for fighting for ourselves and believes you would not have been here. It's a good thing people like you didn't existed years ago or we would all be dead.
You want to be nice against a tiger or against an angry mob of people who want to take your land then fine. Leftish people like you are really dangerous because you have no opinion and don't want to protect the country. your just a parasite living on land your grandparents gave there lives for. Endangering the community. I don't like weapons and violence but sometimes it's necessary.


If my first post was too hard to understand what I meant, I explain again:

I am supporting the innocent normal citizen. How are we/they suppose to defend themselves against terrorists if they have no weapons?. Against something like a school hijack (beslan) what kind of sick people attack an school?, or a plane, or trainstation hijack or else. People have a right to defend themelfs. I don't used to support weapons for citizens before but now after all these evil attacks happened. I am all for the idea of people being able to buy a weapon with a license and registration offcourse.

[Maria Renard]

Your very right in that, I won't hold you that.
But a gun is 1 pow, and the person is death, this way he won't have a chance to rethink about the situation once its pulled.
While with other weapons, sure its about the same way but it won't cause straight dead, you have to aproach the person, attack the person, and it mostly turns out in a wounded fight rather than a death.

Anyway I still couldn't agree more that its the people that kill.i know, but anyways i have a question ^^U...

does people die less being killed with a gun than with a knife?

Gao~!

[Rigby]

Hell why not chop off everyone's hands. Hands can kill in one blow when used properly. Let us also chop off people's legs and take out their teeth. Oh and some people might be psychic, so we have to give them all a frontal lobotomy.

The point is people who are calling for gun control believe that the world should be so safe it suffocates you. They will truly hold back the progress of man, which, be it for good or bad, is worth living for.

[The_Bug]

I am all for owning a gun. Anything to defend myself from a repressive (republican) government. If you put bans on guns, it will do nothing. Criminals will get their hands on a gun, regardless.

[chompy]

Oh my. Welcome to the real world. There is nothing you could have done.
Guns would have been invented somewhere in evolution anyway. Because of our survival against ourselves and nature. It's great if we could live happily in peace without weapons. But that's not the case. At least not now. Besides that there are countless of things which are weapons knifes, pencils, saw, cars etc.
*waves at you from false world*
yeah...

Yes your really peacefull aren't you. I hope for you that's not an treat.
threat? no good sir.

I was merely pointing out that your views and opinions expressed here are NOT unique. many apologies if you feel that i meant this as personal. my point was that the media that you clearly take your views from
i.e:
I am all for guns. How else are you going to blow of the heads of these islamic terrorists?! is a serious threat: as in, it causes people to genuinely believe that (for example) islam is evil, all brown people are out to kill you, there is a 'threat' to you looming overhead etc. by feeding the people with fear and hate. not your fault necessarily, but it is clear that at least some aspects of your personality are influenced by this politcally driven hate-mongering you see on your tv.


First respect others their opinion. Your not supporting freedom of speech. I say whatever I want and to whoever I want.
good. i 100% support freedom of speech. i also support tha right to argue and express opinions however contradictory. you can say whatever you want. respecting your freedom to express your views is NOT the same as agreeing with them.

Second you are a moron who didn't read my post carefully
Third stop labelling me and other people (you leftish people are very good at that) , or I slap you (because no one says that to me).

hmmm...i read your post. labelling me as a "moron" and "leftish"? cool. whatever. slap away. please elaborate on your conjecture before pidgeonholing me twice (ironically after asking to not be labelled...)


If it wasn't for fighting for ourselves and believes you would not have been here. It's a good thing people like you didn't existed years ago or we would all be dead.
You want to be nice against a tiger or against an angry mob of people who want to take your land then fine. Leftish people like you are really dangerous because you have no opinion and don't want to protect the country. your just a parasite living on land your grandparents gave there lives for. Endangering the community. I don't like weapons and violence but sometimes it's necessary.
people like me? hmmm...

you mean left wingers? ok...i'll humour you.

the extremes of the political divide (left and right) are both a bad idea. the extreme right because of their overwhelming intolerance of anything different than themselves and geography, and the extreme left because of...uh...i forget. too high hopes? dreams of equality? whatever.

your just a parasite living on land your grandparents gave there lives for. ironically some of my family did die for land ^_^ (not my grandparents though) in ww2. in concentration camps to expand the lands of the third reich or whatever the hell that war was about. but no...currently i am without land (being a student and all)

If my first post was too hard to understand what I meant, I explain again:

I am supporting the innocent normal citizen. How are we/they suppose to defend themselves against terrorists if they have no weapons?. Against something like a school hijack (beslan) what kind of sick people attack an school?, or a plane, or trainstation hijack or else. People have a right to defend themelfs. I don't used to support weapons for citizens before but now after all these evil attacks happened. I am all for the idea of people being able to buy a weapon with a license and registration offcourse.

hmm...i reserve my right to disagree unreservedly.

[S&T Kawaii Love]

threat? no good sir.

I was merely pointing out that your views and opinions expressed here are NOT unique. many apologies if you feel that i meant this as personal. my point was that the media that you clearly take your views from
That's not nice your just guessing. If you like to know I don

[Knifes]

hmm.. first off... would you two cool it off >.>
no need to get that heated and close this thread unless thats your main goal >.>
It takes two or more to fight... so one of you just lay it down eh?
and no calling each other morons, baka :D:p:D:p


Who knows how Americans will react if guns were suddenly illegal? Violent crime might rise the first year and progessively fall the following year or vise versa or it might just rise until the only Americans left are criminals.
[COLOR=Navy]
well its kinda in our constitution (US) that we have the right to bear arms. :D:p I think it was mainly in place for and if when the people are dissatisfied government and so they have weapons so things "will" change. (not really good reason nowadays.. but back then yea

[tommy hobbes]

outlaw guns then only the criminals have them. that always made sense to me.


it is sort of interesting that the left wants guns outlawed and drugs legalized, and the right wants drugs outlawed and guns legalized. seems like the same issue to me
and then how the left complains of repressive gov. but then wants to give them even more control.


and come on dude, "fascist media?" let me guess you are in college and idolize noam chompsky

[gluehfix]

I don't like guns.
They make it far too easy to kill - aim - pull the trigger - boom!
A joke of practice is needed to inflict serious damage to a human.
The fired projectiles tend to behave unpredictable if they don't hit the target.
Even if they hit, they are likely to hit whats behind the target also.

Unfortunately the bad guys have them, and here in germany the rules are strict, if a civil person wants one.
But will the bad guys refrain from using guns, if the possibility of them victims having guns also is high ?
I fear they won't - I think it'll rise the possibility of a gunfight.
For the bad guy it's easier to cross the line and pull the trigger, and the victim is very likely to loose - if he/she is not trained and carries a gun.
And if the victim is trained what will happen? - The bad guy gets shot, leading non-combattants in danger also.
My resume

[Xebi]

S&T and Chompy, please calm down a bit.
A discussion to eachother is good, but don't go calling names and don't get into to personal of fights.

I'm guessing Bubblemonkey was pretty much right about flame wars. my apologies *I did search for similiar topics on guns, but forgot FireArms*

Anyway, S&T and Chompy, please cool off or I'll have to ask for this topic to be shut down ^_^;;

[necronzero]

When I Think In Guns I think in cowardness, cause I like the sword style, I think it's more honorable and you don't die with one hit (well maybe if your lucky :P) so if we talk about guns, well I actually don't like them, we should destroy them!

[chompy]

S&T and Chompy, please calm down a bit.
A discussion to eachother is good, but don't go calling names and don't get into to personal of fights.

I'm guessing Bubblemonkey was pretty much right about flame wars. my apologies *I did search for similiar topics on guns, but forgot FireArms*

Anyway, S&T and Chompy, please cool off or I'll have to ask for this topic to be shut down ^_^;;

:rolleyes:

i think my point was made without having to call anyone anything.:p

there have been some good points here though, and some views that need to be challenged.

there will never be a common agreement here though. everything that involves polarity and politik is frought with diffrerence of opinion. opinions based on this type of argument (along with the old favourites of Religion, abortion, race, drugs, freedom etc.) are almost always static. this can create friction, however it is sometimes possible to break through...:)

[Neo Zeed]

I think this sums it up quite nicely. (http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/masmuraggunc.html)

A weapon that is too powerful makes the user weak. That's why I don't think of the gun as a weapon (because I feel that would be disrespectful to what I feel are real weapons). The gun is the great equalizer (and that's my term for it). It requires no skill and even a child could kill with one. Now I know some of you will get into some extreme example with a sniper battle in which a child couldn't aim that well... but that's not the usual range most people are shot in/at. And in the case of long distance snipings... that in itself is even more cowardly. No true warrior can rely the gun. With that said... I will take my leave of this conversation.

[Sturmwulf]

Hmmm... It seems this thread is starting to become more of an honorable versus dishonorable weapon discussion. The biggest problem with that sort of discussion is that when it comes down to warfare and survival, honor takes a backseat to self-preservation. Whether it is honorable or not, the firearm is a superior weapon to weapons like the sword and other medieval weaponry, which is why they (swords and such) are now obsolete on todays battlefield. As to the warrior comment, today's version of the warrior is the soldier and I doubt any of them would like to be called cowardly for using a firearm instead of a sword and that they are dishonorable and not true warriors. But this is pretty much a digression due to the fact the thread is about firearms in the hands of the general populace and not about the weapon's standing as honorable. :)

[ChibiFirli]

i know, but anyways i have a question ^^U...

does people die less being killed with a gun than with a knife?

Gao~!
You can die from both, but I think it's just easier to kill with a gun. Point and fire :D (though a knife isn't that hard either, just go for the arteries :D:p). I think that was what Chat le Blanc meant to say :).

Anyway, on guns stuff. If guns are legalised, people should be well trained/educated about guns before getting them. This increases the chance of the people being able to use them when needed and decreases the chance on accidents. Also, there should be a tight control on stealing. So people can't sell their guns to criminals and report them 'stolen'.
This was, IF guns were legalised. As I've said before, I don't have enough information to make a proper logically founded opinion about this. We need research :D:p.
But I think everyone can agree with the training stuff :). Other people have already suggested this in one way or another as well (I don't give names, as I'm too lazy to go search for them and I might include some people who I misunderstood leading to lots of explaining and apologies :p).

[acidhead]

have u ever wondered where does those criminals got their guns? i guess its not suprising to say that its everwhere in the US, right? criminals start off as gangsta posers with a less harmless weapons ranging from knives to anything that is sharp and pointy ( while wapanese tends to use katana for its extra coolness and honour? ;) )...back then, only the law enforcers are allowed to carry guns and firearms, and all the gangsta wannabe would be like,

[seorang]

Defending oneself - 9/11 - you think even a machine gun could have stopped that? Should everybody carry bazookas then? Beslan - you think you and whatever weapon you choose can stop a terrorist unit? Using those events as justification that one should able to defend oneself is hardly sufficient. Maybe we should give every kid a pistol or gun of choice just in case another Columbine happens again.

Don't take this the wrong way - so far most of the people that I see supporting the use of guns are Americans - most of the Asians, Europeans seem alright with gun control. Maybe its because Americans don't see gun control as the issue itself, but rather as the removal of one of their rights?


Hell why not chop off everyone's hands. Hands can kill in one blow when used properly. Let us also chop off people's legs and take out their teeth. Oh and some people might be psychic, so we have to give them all a frontal lobotomy.

The point is people who are calling for gun control believe that the world should be so safe it suffocates you. They will truly hold back the progress of man, which, be it for good or bad, is worth living for.

The world cannot be truly safe. What we can do is minimize the danger. The difference between guns and "hands", "legs" etc. is that with the gun you can kill in an instant.

Edit: so that "smart" Rigby can understand which part is directed at his post.

[Rigby]

What the hell are you trying to say in your criticism of my post? What the hell is the right way to take what you just said to me.

Stupid reactionary.

I have nothing else to say on this issue. Fire away your rhetoric at me, I have a snell 95 rated anti rhetoric helmet.

[Knifes]

The world cannot be truly safe. What we can do is minimize the danger. The difference between guns and "hands", "legs" etc. is that with the gun you can kill in an instant.

As for defending oneself - 9/11 - you think even a machine gun could have stopped that? Should everybody carry bazookas then? Beslan - you think you and whatever weapon you choose can stop a terrorist unit? Using those events as justification that one should able to defend oneself is hardly sufficient. Maybe we should give every kid a pistol or gun of choice just in case another Columbine happens again.

Don't take this the wrong way - so far most of the people that I see supporting the use of guns are Americans - most of the Asians, Europeans seem alright with gun control. Maybe its because Americans don't see gun control as the issue itself, but rather as the removal of one of their rights?

Interesting... Americans eh? well if what you say is somewhat true... then I could conclude Americans are power-hungry (no kidding eh?) :D:p Guns represent a power... a "cheap" power in which some may think because of the lack of skill at short range... but it is nonetheless a power. And what the world thinks is that the US has lots of power... in which it does I guess since historians still consider us, US, the world's only superpower/slash single empire or whatnot :D:p

But anywho.. the main connection is that because we yankees are prideful in power, guns can represent an easy power to control and maybe fear because of the postition and the stance we, Americans play in our lil world. Call it a weakness or strength that Americans are prideful in a "divided" country.. but we do take our liberties for granted, because our forefathers (from generations past and who had no idea that America would be screwed/turned up as today) said that we do have the right bear arms. (refer back to my other post)


The US is a radical country... I demand you fear us because sometimes we disgust oursleves :D:p

[Hitokiri|cMi]

As for defending oneself - 9/11 - you think even a machine gun could have stopped that? Should everybody carry bazookas then? Beslan - you think you and whatever weapon you choose can stop a terrorist unit? Using those events as justification that one should able to defend oneself is hardly sufficient. Maybe we should give every kid a pistol or gun of choice just in case another Columbine happens again.

Don't take this the wrong way - so far most of the people that I see supporting the use of guns are Americans - most of the Asians, Europeans seem alright with gun control. Maybe its because Americans don't see gun control as the issue itself, but rather as the removal of one of their rights?

Well if any air marshalls or pilots @ minimum would have been allowed to carry tazers or shock sticks on those flights, maybe we wouldn't have had the tragedy of 9/11. If a terrorist unit came to my house then no I may not be able to stop them all, but I would send a few more souls to whatever god to whom they pray.

Kid's aren't allowed to hold a license for a gun legally. Therefore, no child should not be allowed to have a CtC license like I do. However if the teachers are properly trained and cleared to have a non-lethal weapon such as a tazer or pepper spray, go for it. My brother teaches in one of the roughest schools in KC and I for one fear for him daily. He has been threatened repeatedly with violence due to flunking kids that don't perform well in his class. Should he be able to defend himself, if say, one of those kids brings a weapon into class? I say yes, but that's my opinion because he's family.

As far as giving up rights, Well to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:

"A person that would give up Liberty for Safety, is a fool that deserves neither."

And that my friends is the current path the United States is trodding. With the passage of the PATRIOT act, among other overly protective and shoddily written laws, the citizens have given up many basic rights, with out even knowing about it. If I post a blog stating the reasons why the current American system should be overthrown and turned into a pure democracy instead of the republic it is today, I could be considered a traitor and a national security risk. I could therefore be deemed an enemy combatant or a risk to the nation, and be held without bond or representation with no charges, for the rest of my life. Why? Because I'm a known decenter against the US Government. Does this make me a traitor? I don't believe so, as I am excercising my freedom of speech. Have I broken any laws? Well if i used an electronic medium that can be or could be exploited, even though I hadn't exploited anything (The key is can be, or could be), by PATRIOT act standards I go to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and never see my friends or family again. Do I fear losing my rights? No offense, but I already lost them in the name of safety and security. Safety and Security that no one on earth can guarantee me.

[Omega-Poot]

Xebi: I'm sure your libertair... thingey, was a libertatian.

I fully support responsible gun ownership. Oh no, a criminal can go to Wal Mart and buyy a gun to hold me up with... and I can roll over, grab my old Ithica Deerslayer and but a hole the size of a grapefruit in his chest.

Gun ownership on a personal level doesn't contribute to world wars. Indeed, if for an reason a large-scale war did break out, I'd rather every civilian in my counry was loaded for bear. Imagine ANY country trying to invade the US, and every sportsman suddenly becomes an effective, accurate, vigilant phalanx and defender. This doesn't apply solely to my country, any country so armed is rightfully difficult to suppress.

Guns are, by no means, the end-all of violent confrontations. Properly wielded, a pint of gasoline, a Jones Soda bottle, and an oil-soaked rag, final price under 3 bucks, can slay dozens, far more than an expensive gun and a clip of ammo, and with even less participation on my part. It can also take down an armored vehicle; ask the russians about that one.

The army and police cannot be the only ones armed, Draco. Please understand that the police and mlitary are very... shall we say, "reactive" orgainizations, who come in after or perhaps during a violent crime in almost every situation; civilians have to call for service, and armed police may arrive minutes after the perpatrator has left a wide swath of destruction using any implement they may have; knives, clubs, axes, crowbars, or illegally purchased guns. Illegalize guns and they become instruments of supreme power, available only to a select few, and generaly, people who shouldn't have them. Leaving the private citizen helplessly relying on Law Enforcement Agents that can't reasonably be expected to instantly teleport to their side should they be threatened.

Private ownership of weapons is a fundemental right that only the government should be allowed to suppress under certain circumstances, such as denying purchase to convicted felons, persons with a history of mental disease, and minors.

Getting "rid" of guns isn't even an argument, as it's nigh impossible. Any invention to comes along and has any sort of positive benefit (which, in the case of the personal firearm, one would be hard-pressed to deny) do not disappear until a superior tool is created. Since we have no cheap, reliable tool provides the ability to defend yourself against multiple threats (1911A1 .45 calibur pistol > pepper spray, every time), drop game at considerable distances, or defend against other country's assaults, when said other country HAS guns, firearms are indeed neccesary. A "neccesary evil" if you will, because no other invention known to man does their job more effectivelly. While we might argue we can overcome our differences, live in love and peace and harmony with everyone, etc etc etc... that's a pipe dream, beyond unreasonable.

As a final minor note, you'll never get rid of knives (as most people would agree, they are quite useful and often essential), but dieing from stab wounds is often a brutal, bloody, painful way to die. I'd rather take a bullet (and have the chance to answer in suit, with my own bullet) than die in any manner of deaths someone WITHOUT a firearm could possibly subject me too.

[Bubblemonkey]

As far as giving up rights, Well to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:

"A person that would give up Liberty for Safety, is a fool that deserves neither."

And that my friends is the current path the United States is trodding. With the passage of the PATRIOT act, among other overly protective and shoddily written laws, the citizens have given up many basic rights, with out even knowing about it. If I post a blog stating the reasons why the current American system should be overthrown and turned into a pure democracy instead of the republic it is today, I could be considered a traitor and a national security risk. I could therefore be deemed an enemy combatant or a risk to the nation, and be held without bond or representation with no charges, for the rest of my life. Why? Because I'm a known decenter against the US Government. Does this make me a traitor? I don't believe so, as I am excercising my freedom of speech. Have I broken any laws? Well if i used an electronic medium that can be or could be exploited, even though I hadn't exploited anything (The key is can be, or could be), by PATRIOT act standards I go to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and never see my friends or family again. Do I fear losing my rights? No offense, but I already lost them in the name of safety and security. Safety and Security that no one on earth can guarantee me.
While I agree with your view on the Patriot Act going a bit too far (it was a knee jerk reaction to fear, not a sensible response to a need), I don't view the giving up rights vs liberty thing as black and white as you apparently do. Any time a group of people join any type of collective, they give up a certain amount of personal freedoms to ensure that the good of the collective is ensured. This is a delicate balance between oppressing the individuals vs too many freedoms leading to anarchy.

For example, in the US, we have freedom of speech (as you obviously know). That's considered one of our fundamental rights. This right, however, is limited in certain respects to protect society as a whole. One cannot run through the streets yelling rhetoric that has no purpose but to incite a riot for instance. Sure, you have the right to believe what you want, but the moment your personal freedom infringes upon the safety and possible personal freedoms of others, that specific freedom has to be restrained for the good of society as a whole. The fact that there's gun control measures is another example of this. Time was that you could buy a gun at any local store without so much as a single page to sign. Once it became clear that an unrestricted gun market posed a risk to the general safety of society as a whole, the government rightly chose to enact safeguards to ensure that guns were being tracked and only those who wouldn't threaten the general public was able to acquire them legally (how successful those safeguards is a whole other matter).

We can't drive tanks down the street because it threatens the safety of the public. We can't stockpile explosives in our basement unless the government knows about it an approves because it poses a risk for the general public in the immediate vicinity. Why should assault rifles that have no real benefit (at least no benefit that couldn't be provided by another firearm) be exempt from this. Just because it's in our Constitution doesn't mean we have carte blanche to do as we please. The founding fathers made sure the Constitution was amendable because they knew that they couldn't see all the possiblities and how the world would change. If they knew that weapons powerful enough to kill everything in a small room in a matter of seconds but could still fit comfortably under a long coat would be readily available, they may have chosen to write some restrictions on the "right to bear arms" clause in the Constitution. They wanted people to be able to protect themselves from foreign invaders since the US didn't have a powerful enough army at the time. I doubt they wanted Joe "follows-the-law-to-the-letter-but-his-wife-left-him-so-he's-ready-to-snap" Schmoe to be able to take out a small building full of people in the span of an hour.

If we choose to be part of society, we have to give up certain things to make sure that society is the best that it could possibly be. If people can't live with that, there are plenty of empty islands in international waters where you can crash and live in anarchy.

[blackhat]

Just to clear up what seems to be a common misconception around here, personal firearms, and especially handguns, are almost never instantly fatal. Most gunshot wounds are not even all that incapacitating. In order to reliably put someone down with a firearm, it's necessary to do damage to the central nervous system, meaning a direct hit to either the head or the spine. Even wounds to the heart or major arteries allow the victim a good ten or more seconds of activity before the brain runs out of oxygen.

In addition, most shots fired in high-stress situations (e.g. during the commission of a crime) do not hit their target. This is even true of trained police officers. It's also worth noting that most gun fights take place at a range of ten to fifteen feet. It takes a huge amount of training to be able to remain calm enough during a firefight to even hit a moving human-sized target, let alone to be able to hit in an immediately fatal area. The idea that anyone can pick up a handgun and instantly become an unstoppable killing machine is, to put it lightly, absurd.

Here's a good article (http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html) on handgun wounding characteristics if anyone's interested.

[Maria Renard]

^^

what i meant was that if you are killing a person, it doesnt matter if you use a gun a canon a knife an axe or a chocochip icecream ^^U...

because you

[Nameless Chibi Neko]

(oh yeah actually i dont have idea of how to kill a person with an icecream , maybe with a chocobanana, but not with an icecream XD)
Maybe if you froze them in a block of icecream? :confused:

~unyanya!~