Weaponry-age!

[rustyslacker]

So:

Guns -> Good or bad? Inherently evil? Tools of protection?

Post your opinion.

I say that guns are just tools. It's not guns that's the problems, it's criminals who get guns. Remember, over 90% of the guns used in violent crime are acquired illegally, and most crime isn't even commited with a gun. The idiot liberals who are supporting gun banishment are also supporting taking guns away from millions of law-abiding, tax-paying, gun-toting patriotic American citizens.

Also, the economic reverberations of a total gun ban would be astronomically bad. There's dozens if not hundreds of custom gunmakers that would go instantly out of business, all the gun shops that would go instantly out of business, ammunition and firearm manufacturers that would go out of business or have enormously huge layoffs (assuming guns would still be made for the military and police) and accessory shops and manufacturers that would fare the same fate.

So? What's the deal?

[Sigma]

As I stated before, casualties resulting from crime-related gun use isn't even one-tenth of the gun casualties resulting from misuse or accidents.

gun-toting patriotic American citizens

You state that like it's a good thing. ;)

[lucius octavion]

Hmm, I agree that they are tools, but if you are christian, god will just say

"What part of 'Thou shall not kill' DID"NT YOU UNDERSTAND?!!!!"

[Aliotroph?]

Criminals tend not to get guns as often in societies that have really strict controls. They may get them illegally in America but in the UK they don't even bother because guns are hard to find. They just kill people with knives! :D

Sigma's right. Lots of people get killed and hurt because people are stupid with guns. In that sense I like not having guns around. The thing is I like guns and I like shooting them (but not killing things). So I can't really decide.

People who call themselves liberal and want to totally ban guns aren't liberal. They're just scared of guns (I know all kinds of people who would piss their pants if I handed them a gun to hold). Real liberals introduced guns in the first place. This is evident because the conservatives of the time would have thought the powder was witchcraft. ;)

[rustyslacker]

You state that like it's a good thing.
Why isn't it? People who have CCWs (Concealed and Carried Weapons) and the permits for them to do so have to demonstrate a good knowledge of shoot-or-don't-shoot judgement, marksmanship, and safety. So it's not these guys (and girls) that's the problem.

Honestly, Sigma, I think you're ludicrously intelligent when it comes to many issues, but I've gotta say you're a thick-headed dimwit when it comes to gun control. ;)

"What part of 'Thou shall not kill' DID"NT YOU UNDERSTAND?!!!!"
If I'm not mistaken, the original text was "Thou shall not murder". Killing in self defense != murder.
Lots of people get killed and hurt because people are stupid with guns. In that sense I like not having guns around.
Here's a proposition. How about if people had to demonstrate the same kind of safety to purchase a gun (it could be like a driver's license, and renewable every 10 years or something) as to get a concealed weapons license? This would solve some problems, right?

[Sigma]

Perhaps I think you are the thick-headed one. It isn't my fault you seemingly cannot comprehend the gun-ban proposal when gun-related death statistics from Britian and Finland are compared to those of the US. ;)

Furthermore, people who murder with a gun in an act of self-defense are probably less than one/one-hundreth of a percent of those who die from accidental/misuse of firearms. You need to face the facts! Dick Cheney, our own vice President, nearly killed a man accidentally.

Also, as I have already argued before as well, the amendment supporting gun-ownership no longer applies in the context it was meant to (written in). You're not going to take out a B-2 "Nightwing" Stealth Bomber with a 12-gauge shotgun, no matter how hard you try. (Or I should state, the likeliness of such an incident is so low, it isn't even worth mentioning.)

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Actually the purpose of the right to bear arms is more for citizens to defend themselves against the incursion of their own rogue government. A lot of people think the constitution is about the limits of the rights of the people, but it's about the limits of the rights of government. If you look at all the stuff written early on, citizens are supposed to overthrow an unjust government, but how can they do that if only the government side has arms?

[Aliotroph?]

Here's a proposition. How about if people had to demonstrate the same kind of safety to purchase a gun (it could be like a driver's license, and renewable every 10 years or something) as to get a concealed weapons license? This would solve some problems, right?

You already have to do that to a certain degree here. The fact that you don't down there is pretty scary. Only here it's completely illegal to carry handguns around, concealed or not, unless you're a cop. You can own them but you can't do a lot with them.

[rustyslacker]

Perhaps I think you are the thick-headed one. It isn't my fault you seemingly cannot comprehend the gun-ban proposal when gun-related death statistics from Britian and Finland are compared to those of the US.
Britian and Finland have quite different societies than tht US. Comparing the two isn't a great tactic. :)
You already have to do that to a certain degree here. The fact that you don't down there is pretty scary. Only here it's completely illegal to carry handguns around, concealed or not, unless you're a cop. You can own them but you can't do a lot with them.
Guns are only for "sporting purposes" up in Canada? *squint*

[Aliotroph?]

Pretty much. You can't even get away with taking a handgun along on your shooting trip in the bushes (though you can take a semi-automatic assault rifle if you really want).

The way you have to keep guns locked up in your house makes it more practical to beat intruders over the head with a pipe. Does keep the kids from getting into the guns though. I can't stand it when people leave guns where kids can get in and accidentally blow their friend's head apart.

[KuriKai]

I say let people have guns...
But if they use them against people (on purpose)... Cut their hands off so they can not do it again.

[FATAL]

Sorry, Hammurabi lived a few thousand years ago.

[Sigma]

If you look at all the stuff written early on, citizens are supposed to overthrow an unjust government, but how can they do that if only the government side has arms?

In the instance the civilian population cannot proceed to change the American government diplomatically, or alternatively, in the circumstance the overthrow of the government must be done through violent means, people with shotguns, rifles and handguns do not stand a chance against a nation with tanks, jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, sophisticated GPS/satellite technology, air to ground SMART missles, the ability to control television, cut off resources/shipment of food, oil and gasoline, et cetera. Obviously, our founding fathers had no way of understanding the things our nation would have in the future.

[Nomad]

In the instance the civilian population cannot proceed to change the American government diplomatically, or alternatively, in the circumstance the overthrow of the government must be done through violent means, people with shotguns, rifles and handguns do not stand a chance against a nation with tanks, jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, sophisticated GPS/satellite technology, air to ground SMART missles, the ability to control television, cut off resources/shipment of food, oil and gasoline, et cetera. Obviously, our founding fathers had no way of understanding the things our nation would have in the future.

I like how you say "our" founding fathers, Mr. German. ;)

I really didn't want to join in on this thread, but... I'm bored. So here's my opinion.

First of all, Sigma is right, everyone. The second ammendment doesn't have much relavance anymore. All the private-ownable firearms in the world would not defeat the massive power out national military has in the event of a rogue take-over.

However, you guys misunderstand the meaning of the second ammendment anyway:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This has nothing to do with personal ownership of arms. This has to do with keeping a well-regulated militia, with the right for that militia to bear arms.

This has to do with keeping the government fresh and in check, and that no longer is possible by the average citizen with a 12g shotgun. At any rate, a militia of citizens isn't what the ammendment refers to either.

The only militias this really applies to, are the military groups operated on the state level, such as the Air National Guard, Army National Guard, Coast Guard, and etc.

As implied by the word "GUARD" in the fucking titles, these groups are supposed to be to DEFEND the nation, which is why I both do not understand, and have been fucking PISSED at the idea of Bush sending guardsmen into overseas battle. This is not the purpose of the Guard groups.

Which brings up that since the Guard groups are apparantly fully controlled by the National government, the idea of militias are completely defeated.

So, in other words, the second ammendment is already long, LONG been inapplicable. You really don't have the right to private ownership to firearms, like everyone seems to think.

However, I am not in favor of a complete ban of firearms.

I greatly enjoy using firarms on a shooting range, and think it is a very stimulating and worthwhile hobby (for concentration, hand-eye-coordination, and self-control, among many other things). However, I don't see any other use of firearms having any kind of merit. Hunting is pointless, as nature has its own ways of thinning herds and such. The possibility for accident is entirely too high.

So my proposal is perhaps banning ammunition, and having it only providable at shooting ranges and other such designated shooting areas. Any unused portions must be returned upon departure, punishable by federal law.

There are plenty of other such compromises, allowing for the ownership and safe handling of firearms, without completely wiping them from the face of the earth.

[Sigma]

Ich will dass ihr mich versteht--

I support a gun-ban for the sole reason neither you or rustyslacker would miss firearms after some time, being as they are completely unnecessary to your existence or general happiness, it would solve more than education (the effect would be further reaching and closer to complete in terms of eliminating gun-crimes and accidental/misuse) and would, in time, change the accepted idea of gang-warfare. Most of the illegal weapons rustyslacker wrote about were at one point acquired legally and later stolen and filed. Obviously, strict gun control and a ban would start with the worst offenders.

The second amendment does support civilian ownership of firearms though-- it is there, clear as day:

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

This was implemented because the British didn't allow the colonists to have firearms to any real extent, making revolution difficult. This implies the people should be able to bear arms in the instance they need to revolt against their own government. As far as the rest is concerned, I completely agree. It's even more reasonable and obtainable, as a goal, than what I would go as far to propose-- but I admittedly, am somewhat biased. As I've said before, a complete gun-ban will never happen either, so strict gun control, education and ammunition lock-up/difficulty to obtain should be established.

In direct response to rustyslacker's post:

Guns are indeed tools. However, you need to consider their purpose; to murder either people or animals-- typically people.

As far as protection is concerned, that argument is worthless. Civilians with guns aren't going to stop a rogue government, our neighbor nations are allies, the chance of a massive invasion (where the fighting would actually come down to civilians) from a nation other than Canada or Mexico isn't even worth mentioning and with concealed firearms, the gun acts more of a deterrent than anything (and since it is concealed, it negates its own purpose largely). Having a gun won't save you the majority of the time-- your idea that concealed and carried weapons are advantageous is based on a statistic that in no way, shape or form reflects the whole of society, and can even be used to put guns in criminal's hands. The only difference is that they can now legally carry them around, reducing the alarm caused to a police officer and people in general if they notice.

Versteht ihr mich?

[FATAL]

Just strict controlling would suffice, I say. That would prevent the instabile and demented people from getting guns, and therefore lower the accident rate. However, due to the HUGE amount of weapons already around the country, the change would be very slow. That's no excuse to back up the right to walk into a store and buy a gun with no questions asked, though.

Here in Finland you have to pass several tests and such to get a right to even hold a gun. No-one's allowed to carry them at the streets, and using them, even in self defense, is strictly forbidden. I see the system working really well.

And I could resist:
"A man should have the right to bear arms, and arm bears and all points between"

[Aliotroph?]

Personally, I think using ANY weapon in self defense, even at the expense of the other guy's life should be perfectly legal, as long as the weapon was on hand. This would virtually never include guns because guns are tricky to obtain and keep around here. I just figure if someone attacks you he should have it coming. Then again, maybe I just liked that taunt trick in Morrowind too much. :D

[FATAL]

Personally, I think using ANY weapon in self defense, even at the expense of the other guy's life should be perfectly legal, as long as the weapon was on hand. This would virtually never include guns because guns are tricky to obtain and keep around here. I just figure if someone attacks you he should have it coming. Then again, maybe I just liked that taunt trick in Morrowind too much. :D
Yeah, the attacker's kind of overprotected in Finland. For example, if someone breaks into a gas station in the middle of nowhere, it may take an hour for the police to get there. However, the station keeper may not do anything to the offender or else he may get sued as well. So the station keeper should just wait and try to convince the offender to stay around long enough for the police to come.

That's a bit extreme, but it has happened. I don't believe in totally free self defense. That just causes more harm than good, for example shooting a burglar is a bit harsh. There's no point in that. It all should be kept in perspective. For example, in my example the station keeper could've used something to knock the offender until the police arrive. I'm not sure about being allowed to shoot in someone's leg in order to stop the offender from escaping, since I can imagine that such shot may cause troubles for many people, and thus "accidental" kills would occur. So no guns in self defense I believe.

[Nomad]

Personally, I think using ANY weapon in self defense, even at the expense of the other guy's life should be perfectly legal, as long as the weapon was on hand. This would virtually never include guns because guns are tricky to obtain and keep around here. I just figure if someone attacks you he should have it coming. Then again, maybe I just liked that taunt trick in Morrowind too much. :D

On a similar note, keeping a gun around the house for self defense is just silly. If a burglar breaks in while you're in the house (which is unlikely--they're not COMPLETELY stupid), and happens to actually have a gun, he intends to shoot you if you try anything. And if you have a gun, he's even more likely to shoot you. Guns are bullet magnets.

In that particular scenario, the best thing is either to
Find a place to hide, and call the police, or
Leave them the hell alone and let them do their thing, and don't draw attention to yourself. Then call the cops.There's not really much else you can or should do in that scenario.

Yeah, the attacker's kind of overprotected in Finland. For example, if someone breaks into a gas station in the middle of nowhere, it may take an hour for the police to get there. However, the station keeper may not do anything to the offender or else he may get sued as well. So the station keeper should just wait and try to convince the offender to stay around long enough for the police to come.

That's a bit extreme, but it has happened. I don't believe in totally free self defense. That just causes more harm than good, for example shooting a burglar is a bit harsh. There's no point in that. It all should be kept in perspective. For example, in my example the station keeper could've used something to knock the offender until the police arrive. I'm not sure about being allowed to shoot in someone's leg in order to stop the offender from escaping, since I can imagine that such shot may cause troubles for many people, and thus "accidental" kills would occur. So no guns in self defense I believe.

How would you feel about arming such shopkeepers with Less-Than-Lethal devices, such as a taser, and/or pepperspray of sorts? Keep the assailant incapacitated until the cops can arrive, but not actually harming them.

I'm not sure how your country would feel about something like that, but I think that's a perfectly reasonable solution.

[FATAL]

How would you feel about arming such shopkeepers with Less-Than-Lethal devices, such as a taser, and/or pepperspray of sorts? Keep the assailant incapacitated until the cops can arrive, but not actually harming them.
Ha, you wish! Even tying them up would give you a "restrict of freedom"

[rustyslacker]

I support a gun-ban for the sole reason neither you or rustyslacker would miss firearms after some time, being as they are completely unnecessary to your existence or general happiness, it would solve more than education (the effect would be further reaching and closer to complete in terms of eliminating gun-crimes and accidental/misuse) and would, in time, change the accepted idea of gang-warfare.

You know the old saying, of course. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's what we all need: an American society where only the criminals and government are armed and law-abiding civilians are restricted to cell phones and keys.

Of course, it's a valid point that all guns were legally purchased at one point. What about importing, theft from manufacturers, etc.? Still possible.

There's really no self-defense (or murder) tool as effective as a firearm. If all guns were to be banned, as you suggest, I'd bet on crime rates SKYROCKETING, especially carjackings and robberies. Convenience store owners won't have a shotgun under the counter to "discourage" any holdups; nobody will have a gun in their waistband to "discourage" or "prevent" a carjacking, rape, robbery, or murder.

Is that what you want, Sigma? It's not what I want.

[Nomad]

There's really no self-defense (or murder) tool as effective as a firearm. If all guns were to be banned, as you suggest, I'd bet on crime rates SKYROCKETING, especially carjackings and robberies. Convenience store owners won't have a shotgun under the counter to "discourage" any holdups; nobody will have a gun in their waistband to "discourage" or "prevent" a carjacking, rape, robbery, or murder.

Now, that's just ridiculous, Rusty. I don't think most criminals would risk a federal crime for possessing a firearm on top of the crimes they already intend on comitting. I don't think carjackings, rapes, robberies, or murders would rise anymore than they are now.

At any rate. A guy carjacks you? That's why you have insurance. Rape? Pepperspray. Robberies? Two things there: Insurance, and security cams. Murders? Those will happen regardless.

And Sigma, while guns may not be that important to ME, going to the shooting range or whatever would affect a lot of people a lot. There are professional marksmen out there, and where would banning their profession lead them? That's pretty fucked up if you ask me.

[rustyslacker]

Now, that's just ridiculous, Rusty. I don't think most criminals would risk a federal crime for possessing a firearm on top of the crimes they already intend on comitting. I don't think carjackings, rapes, robberies, or murders would rise anymore than they are now.
They risk federal crime, Nomad! That's why they're criminals. Duh.

[Sigma]

You've exaggerated the situation far too much. I'm not sure what demented area of America you reside in, but where I am, service stations do not have shotguns hidden behind the counter nor are the number of firearm murders even comparable to accident/misuse deaths (as I have stated over and over). Your portrayal of a future without firearms is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, your portrayal of contemporary firearm use(s) is ridiculous.

@ Nomad

It was purely hypothetical. Again, as I have stated over and over, a comprehensive and total firearm-ban would never happen. I'm sure a professional marksman could continue their occupation-- firearms would not cease to exist. Simply, the probabilities of a civilian obtaining them for purely personal use would be nearly non-existant. This is far-stretched by modern standards, so-- as I wrote in my previous post, strict gun-control, education and ammunition scarcity is the most promising route.

[rustyslacker]

You've exaggerated the situation far too much. I'm not sure what demented area of America you reside in, but where I am, service stations do not have shotguns hidden behind the counter nor are the number of firearm murders even comparable to accident/misuse deaths (as I have stated over and over). Your portrayal of a future without firearms is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, your portrayal of contemporary firearm use(s) is ridiculous.
I have, you're correct, but you've exagerrated in the opposite direction.

You don't seem to recognize that firearms don't go off by themselves. With firearm safety education in public schools, the accidental deathrate would sink. And you aslso don't seem to recognize that a firearm can be used as a tool of self defense. Better than keys and a cell phone, anyhow.

[FATAL]

It shouldn't get to the point where regular people would have to start enforcing the law, that's what police is for.

[rustyslacker]

It shouldn't get to the point where regular people would have to start enforcing the law, that's what police is for.
It has been ruled in American courts that the police have no obligation to protect ordinary citizens.

[Nomad]

Oh, bullshit. So you're saying that if a cop has a call on a robbery, he doesn't actually have to respond? Or are you saying that if a cop sees a crime in action, he has no obligation to help unless he's called to duty?

Right. Bullshit.

[Aliotroph?]

I think he's saying the cop has an obligation to stop the crime but none to keep the victim from getting hurt.

[Shaniac]

It shouldn't get to the point where regular people would have to start enforcing the law, that's what police is for.It has been ruled in American courts that the police have no obligation to protect ordinary citizens.

Dry. But it doesnt help anyway. The US Police don't care. "To serve and protect" : Well I guess protect can be crossed out.

[rustyslacker]

It actually already has. It's not on police cars anymore. ;)

[Raptor Jesus]

Really?

I actually agree with rusty about the scenario he said at the top of this page. I don't own a fire arm (or ever shot one :P) but I wouldn't want the right to own one taken away. It's taking away our freedom.

I will agree that it may lower deaths and crimes but not all that much. It'll probly only stop the people who just get really pissed and shoot someone. Not someone who is actually looking to go kill someone. If they want guns, they will get them. Just like drugs. The've been outlawed, and yet, look how much drug use is going on?

[FATAL]

I actually agree with rusty about the scenario he said at the top of this page. I don't own a fire arm (or ever shot one :P) but I wouldn't want the right to own one taken away. It's taking away our freedom.
That's exactly what's wrong with your country. Restricting guns isn't as big deal as the ridicilous aircraft boarding requirements or the fact that immigrants are being spied by FBI nonstop and possibly even taken into custody for little to no reason. Yet when it comes to guns, everyone's defending their right to have one.

I couldn't stand that freedom bullshit if I lived there. Freedom to own guns is nothing when compared to living free and not having to worry about losing your job every second only because some company has a freedom to kick people out and hire Mexicans workign dollar an hour with no questions asked. Ask me and USA is becoming the kind of nation it's supposedly fighting against. Restricting people's rights for "national security" doesn't work in the long run. The propaganda they're spewing at the moment may ease things for some time, but I wouldn't be surprised if one day there would be tanks on the streets putting down protesting people.

Priorities, people, priorities!

[Nomad]

Things aren't quite as bad here in those aspects as you claim. However, I realize that since you do not live here, your information isn't going to be all that accurate anyway (just like we don't get much in our news about your country, and anything we do get would be headlines that are usually negative).

The mexicans aren't "taking everyones jobs" like everyone seems to claim. The Mexicans are getting the jobs that no one else wants to do, like picking fruit in the hot California sun all day for a dollar a day, or cleaning toilets, or most other hard labor or not so desirable jobs. It's not like Donald Trump is firing everyone in his multi-billion dollar company to have Mexicans fill their positions because they work cheaper.

I wouldn't know about the FBI taking in immigrants for no reason, but even if that was happening, I doubt it would be for "no" reason. With the whole "terrorism" "scare" (since that's exactly what terrorism is supposed to do), the government wants to "protect" us from potential terrorists. If someone is suspected of contributing to this, then sure--they're going to be taken in for questioning. However, I do agree that Arabs are being singled out and mistreated right now, but unfortunately the groups that happen to be causing problems also happen to be Arab, so that's kind of an unfortunate side-effect. At the same time, though, looking at events like the Oklahoma City bombing, that shows that even lifelong American citizens may utilize terrorist tactics to gain attention.

But, looking at the big picture, it's not that big of a problem.

[Raptor Jesus]

It's definately not that bad. Although, I live out in the country separated from society. I haven't really seen too much, if any, people being taken into custody for no reason.

[FATAL]

All taken into consideration. Some explanations even approved.

[jetflock]

Poor William Tesla.