115 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

http://www.usatoday....nterstitialskip


i don't really know what to say about such a topic. it really is all the bad things i feel about the USA in a nutshell. make it legal to allow every American to carry a gun, no matter where they are at, instead of perhaps looking at the source of the problem... It sounds like some post-apocalyptic world. I guess its connected to the relatively freshness of the American world(wild west and all that), but i cannot see why it should be any more tradition to have the right to carry guns than its to force muslim women to wear burkas. Its a bad culture, and the nation would be better off without it.

to allow relatively premature kids to walk around in schools with guns, just because there is a small chance that someone might go nuts and shoot people(dying in traffic is still alot more likely than getting shot in or outside of school for the average American). Sounds VERY counter-productive. it sounds like some NRA quest to infest the bastions of non-armament and win the war on unarmedness.

if this came to fruition, i know for sure where i would not go abroad for studying. Getting 20 guns drawn on me because I'm late for class is a bit too traumatizing even to me.

[Alias]

Something I've said on a different forum:

I really can't see why firearms have to be legal in the States.

Hunting?
Fine, get a damn license for it. Ammunition should be taxed.

Self Defence?
You really don't need a firearm for this. Learn a martial art. If you're not willing to learn a martial art, then it's your own damned fault.

[Tom]

I'm all for concealed carry. Of course kids under 18 shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but if you got a nut killer on the loose its easier to neutralise them if you had the right to carry your own gun. I'm pretty sure a majority of people can be trusted with their own weapons. Disarming populations has only ever served the purpose of tyrants. If you disarm a population all you are doing is disarming the innocent law abiding citizens; criminals and thugs still have weapons. Don't remove peoples ability to protect themselves.

[Casen]

Let me explain why we have such lenient gun laws.

When the United States was first founded, it was at a time when the world was ruled by kings, autarchies, and monarchies. We wanted a government ruled by the people.

So in our constitution we wanted people to be as powerful on their own as possible. The "right to bear arms" was put into place so in the event the US government got tyrannical in the future, the people would have the ability to overthrow the government, or at least put up a good fight. We were also supposed to have militias which we haven't in more than 100 years.

Back in the day we did have chivalry and were a bit more honorable with our weapons (not counting the wild west, but that was a different environment all together). Gun crimes started going up around the 50's, and then since then gun laws got more and more strict here.

Fact is still the majority of gun owners are responsible with their weapons, it's quite misleading when you see school shootings on TV. Think about it logically: the news only reports crimes, why would they report responsible gun owners? Nothing to report. And it is just unfair to ban those people's guns who've always used them responsibly.

The majority of gun crimes are caused by angry mentally ill people who acquire the guns a few days before hand (usually illegally or just finding them) and then they go on their rampages. I've never seen a case where it was one of those stereotypical gun-toting southerners. Those people are usually responsible with their weapons believe it or not.

Personally, I think a compromise needs to be made, maybe do something along the lines of Switzerland. Or at least change the culture somehow to be more responsible. We should teach gun responsibility in schools and raise people in a responsible culture, the US Government is too loose on such things, we never uphold our traditions leaving people to just use them to their own advantage.

Self Defence?
You really don't need a firearm for this. Learn a martial art. If you're not willing to learn a martial art, then it's your own damned fault.

While martial arts will protect you in hand-to-hand combat, against knives, and on rare occasions against firearms at point-blank, for the most part they won't help against another person with a gun. And most guns in crimes are gotten illegally. Heck, in other countries with strict gun laws people still acquire guns. So basically banning guns will keep the lawful citizens from getting guns and then only the criminals will acquire them.

Seriously people always warn against stereotyping and say it's wrong yet for some reason in many countries it's perfectly okay to ban guns for everyone based on what a few people do with them. It's like how in kindergarten when a kid used the scissors wrong they banned scissors. Retarded logic. Might as well ban Islam because of the chance of terrorism.

And the way I see it having responsible people own guns can deter gun crimes. I don't see what's so wrong with this. It worked over 100 years ago. Actually the wild west wasn't AS violent as people think, it was romanticized and dramatized by television. And a good modern example is Arizona; in Arizona, gun laws are the least strict in the country. You can carry unconcealed weapons with you everywhere. And guess what? Gun crimes there are very small.

Edited by Kacen, 16 February 2008 - 04:49 PM.

[Tom]

Britain banned guns in the late 90s, namely handguns. To own a rifle or shotgun you usually have to be a farmer and have to get a license. There is still gun crime in this country regardless, however knives are the more popular weapon now as they have replaced guns. You will never stop criminals getting access to these weapons, so at least let responsible people legally own weapons.

I do agree also. Gun safety should be taught in school and how to be responsible. Schools should also do shooting programs to teach people how to operate and use weapons.

[Casen]

Agreed with hybrid. It's the false dichotomy of fear that's slowly making gun crime get worse. People afraid of guns now it's a stigma to teach responsible gun ownership in school, much like how the conservative religious people in this country are afraid to have sex ed taught here. It's a slippery slope. You people from other countries may think the USA is full of guns and gun freaks but that is a stereotype. Up here in NJ we have relatively strict gun laws, you can't carry a gun out in public as far as I know. Maybe concealed. And in school theres tons of stigma against guns.

Heck I remember drawing a picture of a gun during lunch in like what was it 7th or 8th grade and getting in trouble. People freaked out. You can't even say the word gun or discuss such things without the teachers coming down on you.

Edited by Kacen, 16 February 2008 - 04:58 PM.

[duke_Qa]

on the topic of legal firearms, handguns is my biggest problem. they are designed for killing humans and to be hard to spot. a shotgun or a rifle you can see a long time before it might be a threat. once a pistol comes up it usually is too late.

also, shops that allows you to get a gun in 3 days is a big problem. There should be at least two weeks up to a month of waiting for someone to get a firearm.


but my main gripe here is the irony that people would rather rally around a right to have pistols in colleges and universities than to consider other options. making it harder for people to quickly buy guns would be a incredible easy and hopefully non-controversial quick-fix to these problems. The second one would perhaps be cross-referencing psychological histories with gun-licenses. I bet they do that already now, but i guess it would be better if they did check people who are going mad have any guns in their name, instead of just checking if anyone who gets a gun might be mad.

[Mastermind]

on the topic of legal firearms, handguns is my biggest problem. they are designed for killing humans and to be hard to spot. a shotgun or a rifle you can see a long time before it might be a threat. once a pistol comes up it usually is too late.

also, shops that allows you to get a gun in 3 days is a big problem. There should be at least two weeks up to a month of waiting for someone to get a firearm.


but my main gripe here is the irony that people would rather rally around a right to have pistols in colleges and universities than to consider other options. making it harder for people to quickly buy guns would be a incredible easy and hopefully non-controversial quick-fix to these problems. The second one would perhaps be cross-referencing psychological histories with gun-licenses. I bet they do that already now, but i guess it would be better if they did check people who are going mad have any guns in their name, instead of just checking if anyone who gets a gun might be mad.

The guy in the most recent shooting used a shotgun. He concealed it in a guitar case, and it was the first weapon he used. It's not terribly difficult to hide a shotgun.

[Alias]

While martial arts will protect you in hand-to-hand combat, against knives, and on rare occasions against firearms at point-blank, for the most part they won't help against another person with a gun. And most guns in crimes are gotten illegally. Heck, in other countries with strict gun laws people still acquire guns. So basically banning guns will keep the lawful citizens from getting guns and then only the criminals will acquire them.

That's why if firearms were more strictly circulated, you wouldn't need a gun to take on another gun. It would be hand-to-hand at the most.

[Mastermind]

While martial arts will protect you in hand-to-hand combat, against knives, and on rare occasions against firearms at point-blank, for the most part they won't help against another person with a gun. And most guns in crimes are gotten illegally. Heck, in other countries with strict gun laws people still acquire guns. So basically banning guns will keep the lawful citizens from getting guns and then only the criminals will acquire them.

That's why if firearms were more strictly circulated, you wouldn't need a gun to take on another gun. It would be hand-to-hand at the most.

So, assuming a fantasy world that doesn't exist, martial arts would be all you'd need to know to protect yourself. Good to know.

[Sûlherokhh]

Regarding the issue of availability of weapons and permittance to carry them around:

The gun laws have another side effect that may not be immediately apparent or effective. If guns are stopped being paraded around, being carried in cars or kept at homes to be shown/presented to selected guests, in short, if guns were simply less present in everyday life (disregarding TV for the moment), THEN the appeal of acquiring a gun would slowly decline. I live in a country with strict gun laws (germany). Growing up in this country, i was not once confronted with a real gun. Even though there was (and still is) a certain 'coolness'-factor about guns, there simply is no drive (for me at least) to go out and get one, even for protecting myself. I would a) get into more trouble than without, partly because killing an assailant with an illegally acquired weapon tends to be punished as well and b) i would certainly not have a gun for NOT using it. An assailant may think so too, assume this is now about life and death, and decide to killl me instead of simply robbing me.

So, this is about two things, basically:
1. To let people grow up without getting accustomed to having firearms around.
2. To squash the illusion that guns make you safer, when all they do is end situations of fear, uncertainty and the general feeling of helplessness by provoking the untimely death of one or both parties, which doesn't really help at all preventing these situations and their resulting emotional trauma.


Addendum:
For me personally there is something else to consider. With guns around, the resistance needed to be overcome to actually go out and kill someone is much lower. My point of reference is the following. I live in germany, but i have friends and family in the states, as my father was born and raised there. I feel the difference. It is not unusual to NOT be exactly sure about other peoples intentions, motives and their personality. But everyone has a breaking point. With my american friends and their friends, i am much more careful not to go to far with anything, which is quite different for my german buddies. Just because of the potentially more devastating results. I have a sense of fear that is much stronger in the US than in Germany. Here is an example:

My father was almost killed with a shotgun at a party because he was being nice to a girl who the house owner thought was his (to protect, to keep, to defend against whatever). The point being, hitting on someone's insecurities (often unknowingly) can trigger a violent and often not very thought through response.

If that is a beating, so be it. But once the option of killing someone easily is at hand, it is a different matter altogether. So guns are about power and NOT feeling helpless. On the other hand they spread fear. If you know that provoking somebody may get you killed faily quickly, you tend to get paranoid and fearful, you stop or reduce the potential for angering someone by just being yourself, you start to keep things inside. That it turn makes for an explosive potential. With guns around, that is exactly what i pointed out earlier. Only NOW the gun is in your own hand.

[some_weirdGuy]

everyone having guns is not a good idea if you want people to be safe

one person looses their temper and you will have guns going off everywhere

but Americans aren't that stupid, so they wont allow this... i would hope

[Paladin58]

And then that person who loses their temper has twelve bullets of various caliber put into him by various patrons of the area. Problem solved.

About this, I'd say it's okay, as long as the type of gun is restricted. Yes, pistols are easily concealable, but they are among the weakest weapons out there in the hands of anyone but a trained professional. So, weak pistols would likely be allowed if something like this were to take effect. Anything that can fire more than one round with a single depress of the trigger (like, the whole clip ), has a caliber with more destructive force than a .45 (hunting rifles are ONLY for hunting, not self-defense, and the same goes for bazookas and destroying armored emplacements), and has a clip size larger than 10-12 rounds (most military rifles and submachine guns would be way above this, carrying in excess of 20 rounds), though, they would be out of bounds, limits-wise.

Another thing. The rounds wouldn't be true handgun rounds, but rubber rounds. They don't immediately kill or seriously wound unless a shot goes to the dome, but they hurt. A lot.

That, I could understand working. Anything besides that (unless it doesn't infringe on the 'right to bear arms', and is even less lethal, like beanbags or something), no. Of course, there will be folks who are going to mention "How about NOT HAVING GUNS, numbnuts?!". I will ask, how long would that last before people start making homemade weaponry, like this? Not long at all. Days, likely. Then it would be exactly like drugs. Something that could be legalized, and taxed, but isn't.

[some_weirdGuy]

And then that person who loses their temper has twelve bullets of various caliber put into him by various patrons of the area. Problem solved. tongue.gif

actually, then everyone would shoot everywhere, hitting innocent people, which means more people shoot, more get hurt, and so on and so forth

I will ask, how long would that last before people start making homemade weaponry, like this? Not long at all. Days, likely. Then it would be exactly like drugs. Something that could be legalized, and taxed, but isn't.

you think drugs should be legalized!?

and one nut making a home made gun would be much better then everyone and their dog walking around with a weapon that could kill someone befor they even know what hit them


if they don't let everyone have guns it will go as it is now, everyone is not going to be like
"oh, they aren't letting everyone have guns, lets make our own guns out of junk!"

you say it would turn out like drugs, well then cops would go around busting everyone with a gun, like they do with drugs now

not many people would get away with it...

[Mastermind]

you say it would turn out like drugs, well then cops would go around busting everyone with a gun, like they do with drugs now

not many people would get away with it...

Yes, since drug enforcement has been a shining success, and it's nearly impossible to find drugs anywhere at all.

[Paladin58]

With what I just said: The first line was a joke. Note the sarcasm there. Anyway, next on guns I said rubber bullets, not lead. That's a difference-maker in the whole "OMG, I just shot someone" part of the equation, unless you were really serious and were aiming for their head. Then, that bit is over-ridden and you are a murderer. Nothing will change about hurting people, yes. But, I think in mortal casualties, human lives lost here. Yeah, big deal if someone gets shot, and they have a good likelihood of survival. They go to hospitals, they get fixed up, they go into physical therapy, sue the person who shot them, and get on with their lives. However, with lives lost, they are dead, not coming back. Yeah, it doesn't reduce the amount of total casualties, because getting hit by a projectile still can hurt and break bones, even damage organs; but it can reduce mortal casualties. I'd prefer hurt people, not dead people, is what I'm saying if it comes down to a choice between the two.

On the subject about legalizing drugs, if they are legalized and/or given out through prescription (not by a regular pharmacy, mind you, but something a little more controlled), then it would be easier to 1. Stem the amount of drug-related crimes in this country, which we already have enough of; 2. Be able to tell when someone has an addiction, as they'd have to be cleared by a physician to be able to even touch the drug (legally, there would still be an illegal drug trade, but nowhere near the size it is now); and 3. Be able to give people who have an addiction to a drug help or treatment, as their medical history would also list the type of drugs prescribed.

Note, there are plenty of flaws that would get my argument there shot into swiss cheese, so don't take it too seriously; but it's a start, unlike conservative (as in old-school way of thinking, not the political affiliation) moralist goodytwo-shoes who think 'all drugs are wrong, so lets keep them from everyone, no matter if illegal activity goes up!' (not saying that you are one, just putting that out there). But, that's offtopic. Let's get back to boomsticks. And, speaking of, when MSpencer comes into this topic and points his verbal boomstick at me, I must be ready. *builds fallout shelter, reinforces it with concrete and rebar* Aha, you can't get me now! *shakes fist*

[some_weirdGuy]

Yes, since drug enforcement has been a shining success, and it's nearly impossible to find drugs anywhere at all.

Mastermind, have you ever made a post that was a sarcastic comment? every post of yours i have ever seen anywhere has been sarcastic like this...

also, like i said, people aren't going to go around now making guns just because its illegal
they don't do that now, and everyone doesn't have guns strapped to them, so why would they do this if America doesn't accept this ridicules thing?



i don't know, maybe everyone in Australia isn't so stupid and criminal, but we don't go having drugs everywhere, and making our own guns out of junk like freaking terrorists

so really i don't care if America has drugo's everywhere and everyone with a gun strapped to them, i just thank god that us Australians aren't so retarded...

[Mastermind]

Yes, since drug enforcement has been a shining success, and it's nearly impossible to find drugs anywhere at all.

Mastermind, have you ever made a post that was a sarcastic comment? every post of yours i have ever seen anywhere has been sarcastic like this...

I have in fact never in the history of time ever made a post that wasn't a sarcastic comment.

[Tom]

And then that person who loses their temper has twelve bullets of various caliber put into him by various patrons of the area. Problem solved. tongue.gif

actually, then everyone would shoot everywhere, hitting innocent people, which means more people shoot, more get hurt, and so on and so forth

I severely doubt people will get pissed off, pull guns out on each other and then everyone else will actively get involved just to cause a massacre. Point out any time in history where this has happened from innocent people carry guns? People who cause massacres are generally governments / establishments trying to suppress protests. If people had guns, they could fight back against this oppression.

you think drugs should be legalized!?

Yes, why should i dictate how people destroy their own bodies.

and one nut making a home made gun would be much better then everyone and their dog walking around with a weapon that could kill someone befor they even know what hit them

Because everyone is a potential criminal and mass murderer, so we must treat them like it. I'm sure a majority of adults are emotionally mature enough not to start blasting at people they don't like, especially peoples dogs.

[Tom]

i don't know, maybe everyone in Australia isn't so stupid and criminal

Ironic, considering australia's history