AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-07-24, 23:54   Link #1
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

Because moderator CrowKenobi requested we start a new thread about the effect of the shooting in Colorado on gun control, I am starting this thread.
We don't need to clutter the gun-thread with this discussion since that thread is used mostly by gun-enthusiasts and might degenerate into a flame war.

Continued from the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Shooting (July 20, 2012) :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
^ I am not asking for guns to be banned all together.
Oh yes you are, you fibber..

Quote:
What people are asking for is for guns that can fire many bullets at a time, have little downtime, or that can cause wide spread damage with one shoot to be taken off the shelves. Also the ability to buy many weapons at once is a cause for concern. Those weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes. All these reason listed above is why we have mass killings and while it is certain that these proposed regulations won't absolutely stop all tragedies they will absolutely save lives by making it harder for ill individuals to carry on with their evil deeds.
You mean guns like this one?


Because the founding fathers were too stupid to foresee multishot snaplock revolvers of the 1400s being improved as science advanced.
That one is an 8-shot .63 caliber by the way.

Or maybe you were thinking of the Puckle gun of the 1600s that had a 64 shot drum magazine.



See Sugetsu, the fact is Handgun Control, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Shumer, all the hoplophobes have one thing in common, they don't know the real history and/or truth about firearms and they don't care.
They have an agenda of disarmament and they're sticking to it no matter how much they have to lie to do so.

Quote:
So please I ask you and kyp275, why do you oppose such regulations to take place? Is it because you are just fond of weapons and love to collect them all?
Uh...let see...because they don't work, and never have.

I think Aristotle said it best: "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-24, 23:58   Link #2
Urzu 7
Juanita/Kiteless
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 31
Little advice: Perhaps the title should drop the Colorado shooting part and this can just be a general gun-control debate thread.
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic38963_5.gif
Urzu 7 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 00:00   Link #3
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
That's a good idea Urzu_7. I'll modify it right now.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 00:11   Link #4
Ithekro
Space Battlecarrier
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Why are shot guns effective for hunting and self defense? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't shotguns low on range? Wouldn't a manual rifle be more effective with its long range to hunt fast moving targets?

Why would you want a shotgun for self defense? If you fire it at close range it deemed to cause massive damage and it is most likely to kill than to injure? Unless your idea of self defense is to kill the person attacking you. They are also hard to conceal, so what self defense purposes can they serve to a lady walking down a dark alley all by herself?

I realize I don't know about semi automatic weapons, as long as they comply with regulations I don't see any harm in them. I am under they impression that they can be reloaded very quickly and can fire many rounds at once though. But again, how does my knowledge of weaponry, or lack thereof, be in conflict with the regulations I outlined? If I were the law maker drafting the law and if I gun expert tells me that some kind of semi automatic weapons can be safely made public because they comply with the self defense and hunting premises, then I would have no problem agreeing with him.

Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you
Well shotguns are effective against birds and other small game that would be difficult to hit with a rifle. Also snakes.

THe short range is an advantage as shooting into the air to take out a bird won't land on someone's head a mile or two away.

For home defense it have advantages. One you don't have to aim as carefully. Two, if it is a pump action shotgun, just working the action can be enough to scare an intruder away as most people have head that sound before. Third, the blast won't generally go through your walls and accidently kill your neighbor.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 00:14   Link #5
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post


Oh yes you are, you fibber..
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about guns, so I am sure I'll learn a lot from you. I am not against banning guns all together!. In fact, I believe they are actually useful for the following reasons:

- Self defense, which translates into saving your life or the life of your loved ones.
- Hunting, because killing ducks, deer and rabbits with your bare hands is kinda hard

That being said, I don't think shotguns and "maybe" (my knowledge on guns is very limited) semi automatic weapons are practical for these purposes. Automatic guns, bazookas and rocket launchers are obviously over kill.

Why are shotguns effective for hunting and self defense? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't shotguns low on range? Wouldn't a manual rifle be more effective with its long range to hunt fast moving targets?

Why would you want a shotgun for self defense? If you fire it at close range it deemed to cause massive damage and it is most likely to kill than to injure? Unless your idea of self defense is to kill the person attacking you. They are also hard to conceal, so what self defense purposes can they serve to a lady walking down a dark alley all by herself?

I realize I don't know about semi automatic weapons, as long as they comply with regulations I don't see any harm in them. I am under they impression that they can be reloaded very quickly and can fire many rounds at once though. But again, how does my knowledge of weaponry, or lack thereof, be in conflict with the regulations I outlined? If I were the law maker drafting the law and if I gun expert tells me that some kind of semi automatic weapons can be safely made public because they comply with the self defense and hunting premises, then I would have no problem agreeing with him.

Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you.

Quote:
See Sugetsu, the fact is Handgun Control, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Shumer, all the hoplophobes have one thing in common, they don't know the real history and/or truth about firearms and they don't care.
They have an agenda of disarmament and they're sticking to it no matter how much they have to lie to do so.
I don't think it is wise to assume they are all anti second amendment. Maybe some of them are, but those with an inch of common sense can clearly see that owning a gun can indeed save the owners life, specially in a dangerous zone. Maybe Rush Limbaugh in getting to you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro
Well shotguns are effective against birds and other small game that would be difficult to hit with a rifle. Also snakes.

THe short range is an advantage as shooting into the air to take out a bird won't land on someone's head a mile or two away.

For home defense it have advantages. One you don't have to aim as carefully. Two, if it is a pump action shotgun, just working the action can be enough to scare an intruder away as most people have head that sound before. Third, the blast won't generally go through your walls and accidently kill your neighbor.
That's actually quite a logical point of view. I was mistaken about my stance on shotguns.
__________________
"If you educate people, you cannot control them." ~Jacque Fresco
Sugetsu is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 00:43   Link #6
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you.
The 2nd Amendment has to do with the creation of a well regulated militia (too many commentators focus on the second half of the 2nd amendment, which eliminates all context for the amendment within the bill of rights/constitution). Consequently, any and all gun laws should always be focused on how to create such a militia. I'm of the opinion that only members of a militia (that has been approved by the people of the state (hopefully with certain regulations and guidelines also put in place)) should be allowed to stockpile ammunition and firearms (any and all firearms and ammunitions...save for tools of large scale destruction (explosives, etc)), otherwise I do believe that an individual citizen should be limited in their firearm capacity (I'm also of the opinion that anyone wishing to own any type of firearm should be forced to undergo training in the use of said type of firearm, and additionally training should be given for 'advanced' firearms (similarly to a car license and testing)).

That being said, if a person really wants to kill someone, they will kill them (or at least try to kill them). The presence of guns may make the possibility of murder easier, but the underlying motivation is not created by the culture of guns that America possesses.

Truthfully, I think the underlying question of this thread should be: Do Guns really protect people?

Last edited by james0246; 2012-07-25 at 00:58.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 01:00   Link #7
Sleep_ping
The Restless FTL
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ellinia
Age: 23
Actually, for me, it ultimately comes down to 'Is the gun the dangerous thing, or the one wielding it'. A gun is not a living thing. It's designed not to shoot on its own unless it's an accidental discharge when somebody forgets to turn the safety on. I'm not against gun rules since my country forbids them for civilian use, so I don't have the experience of a gun culture, but the culture is nothing compared to the people wielding them.
Sleep_ping is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 01:11   Link #8
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about guns, so I am sure I'll learn a lot from you. I am not against banning guns all together!. In fact, I believe they are actually useful for the following reasons:

- Self defense, which translates into saving your life or the life of your loved ones.
- Hunting, because killing ducks, deer and rabbits with your bare hands is kinda hard
In the united states those reasons are not good enough.
If you are between the ages of 17 and 45 you have an obligation under the "Dick Act of 1903" to train with military arms of your era so that you are "regulated" as a member of the unorganized militia.

There in lies the problem, as James said, we shouldn't be debating whether or not guns are legal or illegal, we should be debating whether or not training should be mandatory or not.
I say it should be.
The Department of Civilian Marksmanship was created to force young men (in high school) to become proficient in the use of military arms for the benefit of the Federal Government.
That should never have ended.

Quote:
That being said, I don't think shotguns and "maybe" (my knowledge on guns is very limited) semi automatic weapons are practical for these purposes. Automatic guns, bazookas and rocket launchers are obviously over kill.
It depends on whether weapons are the best weapons for the following criteria.
What weapons are best to meet the requirements of Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution?

That section states that the militia is used to "put down insurrections, repel invasions, and uphold the laws of the union."

Okay, can a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon be used for any of those effectively.
Answer, no.

Can a tank, jet fighter, or warship be used effectively for those missions?
NO.

Can a machine gun, rocket launcher, or grenades be used for those missions effectively.
Machine gun...maybe for repelling invasions but not the other two (which is why SWAT teams SHOULD NOT have machine guns, yet they do).

Can a real assault rifle be used for those (i.e. select-fire, semi-auto/auto-loading and full-auto/machine gun)?
Yes, a real assault rifle would be useful for all three missions and is better suited to those missions than a field-rifle/GPMG or heavy machine gun.

Rocket launchers, good for invasions, but not the other two missions.
Grenades: tear and smoke yes, frag, or incendiary? NO way.

Also in US verses Miller the SCOTUS determined that "hunting guns" are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and my opinion is based on their decision which was as follows:

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


Quote:
Why are shotguns effective for hunting and self defense? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't shotguns low on range? Wouldn't a manual rifle be more effective with its long range to hunt fast moving targets?
The scatter shot is excellent for hunting birds like ducks, phesant, or geese.
Shotguns are a food hunting weapon.
Sadly they are also an excellent people hunting weapon as James Holmes proved in Aurora.

Quote:
Why would you want a shotgun for self defense? If you fire it at close range it deemed to cause massive damage and it is most likely to kill than to injure? Unless your idea of self defense is to kill the person attacking you. They are also hard to conceal, so what self defense purposes can they serve to a lady walking down a dark alley all by herself?
Low penetration.
Shotgun slugs are best for home defense since they don't scatter and damage to your stuff is limited. They have more knock-down power than a pistol, but lack the penetration of a rifle.

Quote:
I realize I don't know about semi automatic weapons, as long as they comply with regulations I don't see any harm in them. I am under they impression that they can be reloaded very quickly and can fire many rounds at once though. But again, how does my knowledge of weaponry, or lack thereof, be in conflict with the regulations I outlined? If I were the law maker drafting the law and if I gun expert tells me that some kind of semi automatic weapons can be safely made public because they comply with the self defense and hunting premises, then I would have no problem agreeing with him.
Self-defense and hunting are not protected by the 2nd Amendment no matter what SCOTUS may rule.
The 2nd amendment exists for the benefit of the people (as a last defense against tyranny) and as a last defense for the Federal Government (in the form of Article 1 Section 8).
Semi-automatic weapons ARE militia weapons which is why military forces no longer use them.
A semi-automatic miltiary rifle is sometimes refered to as a battle rifle and while bolt-actions are also classified that way, semi-autos are best described this way.

Quote:
Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you.
Doesn't matter under US law because self-defense and hunting are moot.
The reasons for these weapons in the hands of citizens is because under the US constitution there are no civilians in the US.
We are all supposed to be citizen-soldiers.

Quote:
I don't think it is wise to assume they are all anti second amendment. Maybe some of them are, but those with an inch of common sense can clearly see that owning a gun can indeed save the owners life, specially in a dangerous zone. Maybe Rush Limbaugh in getting to you?
Every one of them has made comments similar to Dianne Fienstein who said this:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

So yes, they want ALL guns banned, which by it's very nature is an anti-government sentiment since our government benefits from having an armed population.
[/QUOTE]

@James
Do guns actually protect people?

Yes they do:


There are many more like her, but the media ignores most of the stories (except local media) because it doesn't fit the narrative they want.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 01:11   Link #9
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
That being said, I don't think shotguns and "maybe" (my knowledge on guns is very limited) semi automatic weapons are practical for these purposes.
Semi-automatic simply means that the firearm self-loads and prepares for the next shot after it has been fired, it does not mean that the weapon is capable of automatic non-stop firing.

The vast majority of all firearms are at least semi-auto, the only exceptions are some shotguns, revolvers, and hunting rifles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Why are shotguns effective for hunting and self defense? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't shotguns low on range? Wouldn't a manual rifle be more effective with its long range to hunt fast moving targets?
Shotguns with slugs are actually capable of decent range, but what type of shells you use in a hunting shotgun really depends on what you're trying to hunt.

As for self-defense, shotguns are ideal for home-defense because the relative wide spread does not demand as much precision from the operator, the low penetrating power means you won't have to worry about bullets penetrating the wall and hit someone unintentionally, like your family or your neighbor, and it packs a whole lot of stopping power while doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Why would you want a shotgun for self defense? If you fire it at close range it deemed to cause massive damage and it is most likely to kill than to injure? Unless your idea of self defense is to kill the person attacking you. They are also hard to conceal, so what self defense purposes can they serve to a lady walking down a dark alley all by herself?
shotguns are for self-defense at home, as they obviously cannot be practically carried outside for everyday use.

Also, when you're using a firearm in self defense situations, your only goal is to stop/incapacitate your attacker. Whether your attacker lives or dies is not, and should not be a part of your decision making process at this point - If you're not ready to shoot to kill, then don't bring out the weapon at all, as that only serves as an escalation of force (ie. the attacker see you pull a gun, and decided to pull his too, except while he's ready to use his, you're not willing to pull the trigger).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
But again, how does my knowledge of weaponry, or lack thereof,e in conflict with the regulations I outlined?
Because you're not making an informed decision with all available information. You say you don't want to ban all guns, yet your initial idea would ban almost all modern firearms. You can't draft a reasonable policy if you don't even understand the criteria you're using to draft said policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you.
This is another good point. How do you define what's overkill? what is the basis for the criteria you used to create that definition? You admittedly don't know much about weapons in general, and I think it's very safe to assume that you also don't know much about practical self-defense tactics and situations, so how can you decide what is overkill and what's not?

A firearm is both less, and more deadly than you realize. A tiny .22 peashooter can kill a human with one shot if it hits the right spot, yet there are plenty of examples of criminals who did not go down even after taking dozens or more pistol rounds in them.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 01:36   Link #10
sikvod00
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Homestead, FL
Age: 28
I regularly visit MediaMatters.org, a progressive media watchdog site. They had this article pertaining to John Lott, who they called a "discredited gun researcher", for falsehoods he made on CNN about gun violence in the aftermath of the shootings: clicky clicky
So is their analysis flawed or what? I'm asking because I'm no expert on guns and I don't want to get my head cut off because the issue is sensitive to many and can cause knee-jerk responses.
Also, what sites do you recommend for accurate and reliable information on gun laws and gun violence in the U.S? I don't really care if they're partisan, (MediaMatters is openly liberal) as long as they're right.
sikvod00 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 01:45   Link #11
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by sikvod00 View Post
I regularly visit MediaMatters.org, a progressive media watchdog site. They had this article pertaining to John Lott, who they called a "discredited gun researcher", for falsehoods he made while on CNN: clicky clicky
So is their analysis flawed or what?
Also, what sites do you recommend for accurate and reliable information on gun laws and gun violence in the U.S? I don't really care if they're partisan, (MediaMatters is openly liberal) as long as they're right.
Unfortunately you're going to have to do your own research into the various studies (such as the JAMA study on gun violence) if you want to find the truth of the matter.

That MediaMatters article is flawed BTW, and here is why.
It is working from the premise that gun ownership is the reason for violence in the US and the high murder rate.
It isn't as evidenced by Switzerland having mandatory ownership of actual military assault rifles and having one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

So what's the difference between the Switzerland and the US?
Gangs.
We've got far more drug gangs than most any other civilized country in the world.
This is also why Mexico is a war zone (which mangamuscle can attest to I'm sure).

Gang violence accounts (depending on the study) for 38-43% of all gun-related homicides in the US.
Stop the gangs and you stop the violence.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...oung-males-cdc
__________________

Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2012-07-25 at 01:59.
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 02:26   Link #12
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
@ sikvod00

It also annoys me to no end when they continue to refer to the AR15 as an "assault weapon". It is not, and will never be considered an assault weapon by anyone who actually knows what the term means.

The M16s and M4s with burst fire mode that we use in the military is an assault weapon, civilian AR15s with only semi-automatic fire mode is NOT an assault weapon. The media's classification is so broad and worthless they'll probably classify our bayonets as "assault knifes".

The main issue with that MediaMatters article is that it uses correlation as causation, while discarding every other factor that influences violent crime rate while concentrating solely on number of gun ownership.

Social-economic issues is the main driver behind violent crime rates. Will greater availability of firearms lead to more gun-homicides in a violent-prone nation? absolutely, as it is the most efficient tool for the purpose. That being said, if you ban guns in the same nation, will it reduces the number of gun-homicies? probably. But will it reduces the total number of homicides? not likely. People who are driven to kill will continue to do so, whether by illegal firearms or other tools and instrumentation.

Humans have been killing each other since the stone age, did guns cause the cavemen to kill each other?
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 03:25   Link #13
grylsyjaeger
Onani Master
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The girl's bathroom
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to grylsyjaeger
I'm a big shooter and I can't get enough trigger time to satisfy my needs but personally I don't see why civilians need semi-automatic centre fire rifles. Rimfires I can see them being a little bit of fun but from the hunting perspective if you can't drop or even hit your target with the first round, go home.


But the on the subject of complete gun control I always liked that NRA poster, "free men own firearms, slaves don't" or similarly quoted.
__________________

"It doesn't mean much, we never had a chance."
grylsyjaeger is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 03:48   Link #14
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by grylsyjaeger View Post
I'm a big shooter and I can't get enough trigger time to satisfy my needs but personally I don't see why civilians need semi-automatic centre fire rifles.
When you figure out a way to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, especially in the US where there is such a high saturation of guns already, then we can start talking about what should or should not be available to civilians.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 04:39   Link #15
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
It isn't as evidenced by Switzerland having mandatory ownership of actual military assault rifles and having one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

So what's the difference between the Switzerland and the US?
Gangs.
We've got far more drug gangs than most any other civilized country in the world.
This is also why Mexico is a war zone (which mangamuscle can attest to I'm sure).

Gang violence accounts (depending on the study) for 38-43% of all gun-related homicides in the US.
Stop the gangs and you stop the violence.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...oung-males-cdc
Switzerland has another advantage in mandatory conscription. Meaning every adult male at least had some decent training in safe gun handling. Every accident caused by people acting stupid is one too many. A welfare state and no major urban areas tends to help as well.


If you remove gangs, gun violence will certainly drop, but gangs are a symptom of larger social issues which still create a fertile soil for gun violence. Also drugs and alcohol abuse in any part of society make a dangerous combination with gun access.
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 07:19   Link #16
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
@James
Do guns actually protect people?

Yes they do:


There are many more like her, but the media ignores most of the stories (except local media) because it doesn't fit the narrative they want.
Singular anecdotal evidence is meaningless. I can find dozens of stories about men and women that, even with guns and even training (though most are without training), were still assaulted, and worse raped or even killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
When you figure out a way to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, especially in the US where there is such a high saturation of guns already, then we can start talking about what should or should not be available to civilians.
That's kind of a backwards argument. You're more or less saying that guns are bad and dangerous, so everyone should have one. Additionally, the 2nd amendment is not really about personal safety against thugs, ruffians, ne'er-do-wells and singular or small groups of monsters. The 2nd Amendment is about stocking and supporting a well-trained militia.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 07:32   Link #17
NoemiChan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 26
Send a message via Yahoo to NoemiChan Send a message via Skype™ to NoemiChan
In general, guns has one purpose, that is to kill. Yes, you protect yourself when you have a gun. But having a gun requires a high responsibility.

How many times have I heard and watched on TV, child killed his playmate with a gun, son killed his parents with a gun, guy killed girlfriend with a gun, funny that the shooter either owns the gun or he's parents do.

Guns are for law enforcers to use and not civilians.

Guns mentally has a hidden effects to its user, the feeling of having power and superiority. They scare people they have grudge with, with a gun... they either just point or just pull the trigger, "who cares, no one's here except us?"

The lack of security causes these people to arm themselves or that what they insist. Guns should be banned if necessary to protect ourselves and our family not only from the criminals but from ourselves... when we go out of our mind that is...
NoemiChan is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 07:45   Link #18
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
That's kind of a backwards argument. You're more or less saying that guns are bad and dangerous, so everyone should have one.
Not really, I'm simply being practical here. Firearm is a huge force multiplier/equalizer, and if you can't even begin to deny the criminal elements access to these weapons, then you shouldn't deny them to normal civilians either.

And even if you could, I still don't think it's a good idea. As I said, it's big equalizer, and it allows those who choose to do so the ability to protect themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Additionally, the 2nd amendment is not really about personal safety against thugs, ruffians, ne'er-do-wells and singular or small groups of monsters. The 2nd Amendment is about stocking and supporting a well-trained militia.
The SCOTUS have said so otherwise, and frankly the whole militia thing is just beating a irrelevant dead horse. Like it or not, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the 21st century includes the right to bear arms for the normal citiznery, suddenly going strict constructionist on the 2nd Amendment alone is disingenuous at best - should we do the same for the Commerce Clause?

Maybe sometime in the future the SCOTUS will re-interpret the 2nd Amendment again, and maybe Congress and the States will ratify another amendment to alter it, but until then, the whole militia thing is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
In general, guns has one purpose, that is to kill. Yes, you protect yourself when you have a gun. But having a gun requires a high responsibility.
Gun is a tool, it just happens to be a very efficient one, whether you're using it to commit a crime, defend yourself, or hunt etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
How many times have I heard and watched on TV, child killed his playmate with a gun, son killed his parents with a gun, guy killed girlfriend with a gun, funny that the shooter either owns the gun or he's parents do.
Retarded owners who doesn't know how to secure their weapons don't deserve to have them. As for the non-accidental killing by guns... you really think that disgruntled ex-bf will just go "Oh crud, I don't have a gun... I guess I'll just sulk some more by myself."? No, he's gonna grab a kitchen knife or baseball bat, or just any blunt/sharp object he can find and go to town anyway. The driving cause behind the homicide is not the gun, so expecting the homicide to go away because you took away the gun is delusional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
Guns mentally has a hidden effects to its user, the feeling of having power and superiority. They scare people they have grudge with, with a gun... they either just point or just pull the trigger, "who cares, no one's here except us?"
If you're a immature lil punk, yea. And are you seriously accusing every gun owner of getting off on having a gun, casually threatening and shooting people all the time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
The lack of security causes these people to arm themselves or that what they insist. Guns should be banned if necessary to protect ourselves and our family not only from the criminals but from ourselves... when we go out of our mind that is...
You realize the private citizens in the US have been armed long before the foundation of the nation itself?

I've yet to see anyone who can explain how banning guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Also, if you need the government to ban guns to protect you from yourself... you've got way bigger issues, especially since it won't protect you from yourself anyway, 'cause you're still crazy.

Last edited by james0246; 2012-07-25 at 08:48. Reason: double post...
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 08:06   Link #19
NoemiChan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 26
Send a message via Yahoo to NoemiChan Send a message via Skype™ to NoemiChan
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Gun is a tool, it just happens to be a very efficient one, whether you're using it to commit a crime, defend yourself, or hunt etc.
You just mentioned effecient and crime in the same sentence? Ok, at least we agree on something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
If you're a immature lil punk, yea. And are you seriously accusing every gun owner of getting off on having a gun, casually threatening and shooting people all the time?
Not all people are emotionally stable... When people are in rage they will use the best, quickest thing to settle the issues. Why get a knife if you have a gun?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
You realize the private citizens in the US have been armed long before the foundation of the nation itself?
That's something that shouldn't be proud of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
I've yet to see anyone who can explain how banning guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Also, if you need the government to ban guns to protect you from yourself... you've got way bigger issues, especially since it won't protect you from yourself anyway, 'cause you're still crazy.
Anyone who carries a gun, could be , please note "could be" a potential offender in the future....
NoemiChan is offline  
Old 2012-07-25, 08:22   Link #20
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
You just mentioned effecient and crime in the same sentence? Ok, at least we agree on something.
and completely ignoring the rest of my point

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
Not all people are emotionally stable... When people are in rage they will use the best, quickest thing to settle the issues. Why get a knife if you have a gun?
and again completely ignoring the core issue - Why does it matter whether the perp uses a gun or a knife when the victims remains very much dead in both cases?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
That's something that shouldn't be proud of.
Yea, we should all so be proud to still be British

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenjiChan View Post
Anyone who carries a gun, could be , please note "could be" a potential offender in the future....
That's just plain asinine and ridiculous. By that logic, ANYONE who drives a car should be considered a potential drunk driving offender, a potential hit-and-run offender etc. Everyone is a potential...EVERYTHING offender, it is a pointless statement. Should we now institute thought-crimes and police people's mind to make sure nothing bad happens too?

The fact of the matter is that banning gun in the hope of getting rid of violent crimes is about as naive and will work about as well as if a country decide to unilaterally disarm itself and expect world peace to follow. You're doing nothing other than tackling one of the symptoms instead of the core problems while burying your head in the sand.

Also, I like how you just ignored and skirted around all the points I made If you want to have an actual intelligent debate on the issue, at least have the courtesy to actually respond to the counter points the other side is making.
kyp275 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.