Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Gun Control (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76386)

Sythe 11-12-2003 07:44 PM

What do you think about the issue of gun control.

I say there should be more restrictions such as a longer waiting day period and ban some weapons. Rifles mostly that are not really used for sport. And a more through backround check.

Faceman 11-12-2003 08:03 PM

I'd have to say a lot about that but it's 2AM over here and I keep my more elaborate answers for the morning.
In short:
I'm for a ban on all non-hunting firearms. (I understand that in the US high calibre handguns are also used for hunting on some occasion).
Exceptions only for people who "require" guns at their job (e.g. security guards) and only AT their job (no taking the gun home).

Night Stalker 11-12-2003 08:16 PM

Gun control is putting 7+1 rounds in the same 1/2 inch hole at 25 yards. ;)

Seriously, what do you think all these extra restrictions do? Take the weapons away from law abidding citizens. That's it.

The criminals will just ignore the law and get around it - and still own guns. That's what they do! They're criminals!

Why do think the 2nd Ammendment is there? To allow be people to have personal defense tools? No. To allow criminals to be dangerous? No. Criminals, esp ones with violent tendancies, are dangerous anyway. My own two hands are lethal weapons - should I wish to apply them that way. To allow hobbiests to have vast armouries for display? No.

The 2<sup>nd</sup> Ammendment is there to protect We the People from Government. Don't think that is needed? Try reading the PATRIOT ACT. Yet We the Sheep seem all to willing to sell our power and our protection over to the Government for the illusion of safety and security.

"Those that would trade Liberty for Security will have neither Liberty nor Security" ~Benjamin Franklin

Don't think that the general populace needs assault riffles? I'll tell you one reason that We the People do: the standing army has assault riffles.

The number one rule for subjugating a population is disarm it. Read any military treatise and you will find this guiding factor. Then you segregate and eliminate malcontents, and seduce the remaining populace to your cause. "War is extension of policy by other means" ..... and "the purpose of war is to deminish your opponents capability to wage war."

The problem is not, and never has been the availability of weapons to the populace. The problem is people. To cure a disease, you do not treat a symtom. You treat the disease. That means removing those that are dangerous to society from society. No law can ever prevent an action. No law has ever stopped a bullet, or a rape, or a burglery. Consequenses for breaking the law can be a deterant, but that's it. Hopefully the deterant is high enough that the risk of commiting the crime does not equal doing the time, so to speak.

[ 11-12-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

sultan 11-12-2003 09:14 PM

night stalker - surely societies such as the UK and australia, who have strict gun control laws, are examples for the fact that an unarmed populace need not necessarily be subjugated or abused?

or, to put it another way, the US citizens are armed to the teeth compared to australian citizens, yet the Patriot Act you referred to is much more subjugating and abusive of the citizenry than anything the australian govt passed in response to 9/11 and the war on terro.

my point being - guns dont seem to help prevent the thing you claim the 2nd ammendment protects.

note that i agree with you 100% that treating the disease is the right solution.

edit: typo and added last sentence

[ 11-12-2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]

Night Stalker 11-13-2003 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sultan:
night stalker - surely societies such as the UK and australia, who have strict gun control laws, are examples for the fact that an unarmed populace need not necessarily be subjugated or abused?
As I have no experience with the UK or Oz, I cannot fully answer this question. But, the Brits did extract the Magna Carta from the King at sword point. Now, before you say a sword is not a gun, a sword was just the weapon of the day. Equal playing field. But seeing as of right now, where neither of those two governments are overtly trying to abuse their populations, you don't need to defend yourselves from them. But that they are not being abused is not a function of them being unarmed.

Quote:

Originally posted by sultan:

or, to put it another way, the US citizens are armed to the teeth compared to australian citizens, yet the Patriot Act you referred to is much more subjugating and abusive of the citizenry than anything the australian govt passed in response to 9/11 and the war on terro.

Put another way: "When a government fears the population, you have liberty. When the population fears the government, you have tyranny." ~Thomas Jefferson

Yes, the PATRIOT ACT (I capitolize it because it actually is an acronymn) got passed. See in order for a tool to work (2nd Ammendment in this case - Americans armed to the teeth) you have to pull the trigger so to speak. As I said, We the Sheep of the United States keep wanting to turn over freedoms we have over to the government for the illusion of security. We let them shove the PATRIOT ACT upon us. The reason I used the Jefferson quote is the atmosphere of We the People ranges from apathetic to slightly fearful. We are approaching tyranny - not there yet, but we are approaching it. And we VOTE for it! Or not vote for it, but raise no voice of opposition, which in effect is the same thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by sultan:

my point being - guns dont seem to help prevent the thing you claim the 2nd ammendment protects.

note that i agree with you 100% that treating the disease is the right solution.

edit: typo and added last sentence

Again, you have to exorcise a right for it to be effective. We have chosen not to exorsise the 2nd as of yet. That is NOT the same thing as not having it at all though. A population unable to throw off tyranny is not in the same position as a population that allows it to exist.

Faceman 11-13-2003 05:32 AM

Okay,
I stated my point above and I'm no going to provide the philosophy behind it:
It's rather simple. Handguns (and submachine-guns, assault rifles,...) have been invented and produced throughout history for one purpose: To hurt/kill humans. Now a country who forbids these things by law should have no big problem banning items that are tools to solely that purpose.
The difference is that if your average Joe snaps and goes on a rampage he will probably wound 3-4 people with a knife before stopped, but may kill 5-6 people with a handgun, with an assault-rifle or and MP maybe even more.
Now let me address the common defensive arguments on gun ownership:
</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>I need a gun for personal defense:</font> No you don't. There are plenty of non-lethal defense weapons out there and they will mostly give you the appropriate edge over a burglar or another criminal unless he has a gun.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>I need a gun for personal defense, in case the burglar got a gun:</font> No you don't and you can be thankful if you have no gun in that case. Simply because generally: 2 guns = 1 corpse</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>If we ban guns the criminals will still have guns:</font> Yes, In fact if we ban guns everybody who's got a gun will be a criminal. A gun was built for malicious purposes, people who hold it (although it's against the law) probably have malicious intents.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports</font>: And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes. And I know a guy who grows his own pot just for personal use. Why is the country limiting our freedom. Because it reserves the right to ban/forbid items that are highly dangerous for the community.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>Guns don't kill people, people kill people:</font> But guns make the whole job a lot easier. Like "It's not the football that scores, but the player". Correct, but if you keep the football away from the player all the time I guarantee you, you won't lose a sinlge match anymore.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>Unarmed citizens can be easily surpressed by the government. We need guns to defend our internal freedom:</font> This is IMHO the only VALID argument for private gun ownership. However, putting this argument to the max private persons should also be able to own: Howitzers, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Submarines, Cruise Missiles, Nuclear Warheads (no ICBMs though as you don't need THAT long range for civil war),...
    The choice at the moment is limited because of the relation between the extraordinary threat these items can pose and the need to use them in a civil war. The more lenient, functioning and liberal a government is and the less the chances for tyranny, the less heavy weaponry the average citizen needs.
    Of course it would be outright stupid to ban public armament in countries like Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but in peaceful countries such as Germany, France, Austria, Singapore, Japan or the US private gun ownership - at least of full-auto weaponry - can IMO easily be restricted.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>But what if tyranny comes anyway? We will be completely defenseless:</font> You will be completely defenseless anyway.
    Even if you DO own a complete assortment of M16A2s, MP5s, M9s, M60ies, LAWs and an M2 in your backyard. Not only because the army still has superior weaponry, but mainly because they are trained.
    The forces sent to Iraq were an expidition troop. Yet the Iraqi army could not hold them back and within shortest time the war was over. Does anybody really believe that some citizens with an M16 would defeat the whole US Army.
    If there really was a civil war the only chance of freedom-fighters would be to get a part of the army to join them, which is not unrealistic but invalidates the argument again. Because if you manage to get some divisions join you in fight against tyranny does the M16 in your cabinet really matter? I don't doubt they will join you, but most likely because they love their country as much as you do and not because you force them at gunpoint.</font>

[ 11-13-2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Sir Taliesin 11-13-2003 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Faceman:
Okay,
I stated my point above and I'm no going to provide the philosophy behind it:
It's rather simple. Handguns (and submachine-guns, assault rifles,...) have been invented and produced throughout history for one purpose: To hurt/kill humans. Now a country who forbids these things by law should have no big problem banning items that are tools to solely that purpose.
The difference is that if your average Joe snaps and goes on a rampage he will probably wound 3-4 people with a knife before stopped, but may kill 5-6 people with a handgun, with an assault-rifle or and MP maybe even more.
Now let me address the common defensive arguments on gun ownership:
</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>I need a gun for personal defense:</font> No you don't. There are plenty of non-lethal defense weapons out there and they will mostly give you the appropriate edge over a burglar or another criminal unless he has a gun.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>I need a gun for personal defense, in case the burglar got a gun:</font> No you don't and you can be thankful if you have no gun in that case. Simply because generally: 2 guns = 1 corpse</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>If we ban guns the criminals will still have guns:</font> Yes, In fact if we ban guns everybody who's got a gun will be a criminal. A gun was built for malicious purposes, people who hold it (although it's against the law) probably have malicious intents.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports</font>: And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes. And I know a guy who grows his own pot just for personal use. Why is the country limiting our freedom. Because it reserves the right to ban/forbid items that are highly dangerous for the community.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>Guns don't kill people, people kill people:</font> But guns make the whole job a lot easier. Like "It's not the football that scores, but the player". Correct, but if you keep the football away from the player all the time I guarantee you, you won't lose a sinlge match anymore.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>Unarmed citizens can be easily surpressed by the government. We need guns to defend our internal freedom:</font> This is IMHO the only VALID argument for private gun ownership. However, putting this argument to the max private persons should also be able to own: Howitzers, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Submarines, Cruise Missiles, Nuclear Warheads (no ICBMs though as you don't need THAT long range for civil war),...
    The choice at the moment is limited because of the relation between the extraordinary threat these items can pose and the need to use them in a civil war. The more lenient, functioning and liberal a government is and the less the chances for tyranny, the less heavy weaponry the average citizen needs.
    Of course it would be outright stupid to ban public armament in countries like Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but in peaceful countries such as Germany, France, Austria, Singapore, Japan or the US private gun ownership - at least of full-auto weaponry - can IMO easily be restricted.</font>
  • <font color=#FFFFFF>But what if tyranny comes anyway? We will be completely defenseless:</font> You will be completely defenseless anyway.
    Even if you DO own a complete assortment of M16A2s, MP5s, M9s, M60ies, LAWs and an M2 in your backyard. Not only because the army still has superior weaponry, but mainly because they are trained.
    The forces sent to Iraq were an expidition troop. Yet the Iraqi army could not hold them back and within shortest time the war was over. Does anybody really believe that some citizens with an M16 would defeat the whole US Army.
    If there really was a civil war the only chance of freedom-fighters would be to get a part of the army to join them, which is not unrealistic but invalidates the argument again. Because if you manage to get some divisions join you in fight against tyranny does the M16 in your cabinet really matter? I don't doubt they will join you, but most likely because they love their country as much as you do and not because you force them at gunpoint.</font>

<font color=orange>Your country and your opinion. I respect that. I just don't agree with any of it. I could argue all your fine points, but we've been around this tree so many times in the past three years that I just don't see any need too. You won't change mind and I won't change yours. The Gun Control Topic ought to banned from Ironworks. About as bad as all the religous ones going on out there now.

[ 11-13-2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Timber Loftis 11-13-2003 01:12 PM

I think the Patriot Act shows it's time for us to reclaim a bit o' the country. I'm up for a revolution. Who's with me. :D Erm, on the point that the US army is too powerful for even an armed popular revolt -- let us not forget that many of the soldiers will join the ranks of the revolutionaries. ;) I had that pointed out to me when I made the same point.

Jefferson felt that a popular revolt was needed ever 20 to 50 years in society. I'm with him on that. Peace leads to too much overpopulation. :D

Maelakin 11-13-2003 01:24 PM

As a gun owner, I have another valid reason I should be allowed to continue owning my firearms.

A gun is a tool. The reason for possession of that tool is irrelevant. Most instances of injury and death due to owning a gun comes not from malicious intent, but from the misuse of the tool. Education would result in less instances where a gun results in bodily injury.

Every year, irresponsible and reckless automobile drivers kill more people than guns even come close to killing. Like a gun, cars are a tool we use. When improperly used the result can often times be tragic. Just as I can decide to take my gun and shoot another, I can take my car and hit another, often having the same effect, death.

Does this mean that we should also have a ban on automobiles?

The bottom line is that removing the right to own firearms does nothing but promote an illusion of pacification. In addition, it removes a personal liberty I should always have, the right to protection. Understand also that a guns protection comes mostly from the threat of its use, not the actual act of using it.

Faceman 11-13-2003 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I think the Patriot Act shows it's time for us to reclaim a bit o' the country. I'm up for a revolution. Who's with me. :D Erm, on the point that the US army is too powerful for even an armed popular revolt -- let us not forget that many of the soldiers will join the ranks of the revolutionaries. ;) I had that pointed out to me when I made the same point.

I did point that out. However if soldiers would join the revolutionaries, they would also gain access to some of the army's weapons, which would be much compared to the arms people keep at home.
Basically my point was:
If you really gotta fight the whole army you'll lose.
If you got part of the army with you, I'm not sure your personal 1911A will make that much a difference.

P.S.: Personally I love guns and if my country allowed automatic weaponry I should be the first to buy some
BUT
After giving the thing a little thought I decided that owning a gun is dangerous and that I don't want that kind of responsibilty. So although I read a lot about guns, and would never refuse if someone took me along to the shooting range, the only pieces I own are two 6mm BB replicas.

[ 11-13-2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

sultan 11-13-2003 04:53 PM

great timing for this little story...

Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...674285957.html
November 13, 2003 - 11:12AM

No charges will be filed against a Colorado homeowner who shot to death a neighbour who was threatening him at his door because the killing was justified under the state's "Make my day" law, a prosecutor said today.

"Citizens of our state have a right to absolute security in their homes," Weld County assistant district attorney Thomas Quammen said.

The Colorado legislature in the 1980s passed a law that gives immunity to homeowners who take deadly action against someone breaking into their homes.

The law is commonly referred to as "Make my day" in a reference to the Clint Eastwood movie Sudden Impact in which his Dirty Harry detective character dared a criminal to shoot back and "Make my day".

The shooting occurred on November 2 after Richard Hammock went to the home of his neighbour Eric Griffin whom Hammock believed shot his dog with a pellet gun. Hammock was holding a wooden pole.

"The evidence we had was that the deceased came over, was angry, was shouting, was being provocative," Quammen said.

The homeowner went to the door and told Hammock to go away and locked a glass door. But Hammock then broke through the glass pane and Griffin shot him.

"If someone is breaking into your house ... you are entitled to use force, including deadly force," Quammen said.

"Our hands are tied on this," he said, referring to the state law that provides immunity from criminal prosecution and even immunity in civil suits.

He said besides calls from the media, the district attorney's office in Greeley, Colorado was also getting phone calls from the public mostly supporting the district attorney's decision not to prosecute.


Faceman 11-14-2003 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelakin:
As a gun owner, I have another valid reason I should be allowed to continue owning my firearms.

A gun is a tool. The reason for possession of that tool is irrelevant. Most instances of injury and death due to owning a gun comes not from malicious intent, but from the misuse of the tool. Education would result in less instances where a gun results in bodily injury.

Every year, irresponsible and reckless automobile drivers kill more people than guns even come close to killing. Like a gun, cars are a tool we use. When improperly used the result can often times be tragic. Just as I can decide to take my gun and shoot another, I can take my car and hit another, often having the same effect, death.

Does this mean that we should also have a ban on automobiles?

The bottom line is that removing the right to own firearms does nothing but promote an illusion of pacification. In addition, it removes a personal liberty I should always have, the right to protection. Understand also that a guns protection comes mostly from the threat of its use, not the actual act of using it.

A gun is a tool.
But what for?
Handguns, submachineguns, MGs or assault rifles are tools,
tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently.
Killing or hurting people however is by default illegal, so it's just logic to ban something if its sole purpose is something illegal.
This is why we call them arms rather than tools.
The main purpose of an automobile is to move people from one place to another, something perfectly legal and necessary. This is why a car doesn't compare to a gun. If we put a ban on cars, the economy would collapse, if we put a ban on guns there would just be the usual backlash you get when you forbid something.
This is also, why I'm against a ban on hunting rifles, or hunting arms (big calibre handguns, knifes) in general. These are useful items.
A H&K MP5K however does not serve any legal useful purpose.

I understand, that many are concerned with their protection, and that a gun is "used" often as a threat. To serve and protect there's the police. I don't know how that works with you overseas but in my country they're pretty decent folks, and they're pretty fast. Of course you want to protect yourself as well as possible, but in a society you sometimes have to trade your own good for the common good, which in this case is to protect it from gun owners, not as responsible as you.
Then again there's a lot of non-lethal protection equipment out there as I stated, and as I also stated above: If you both have got a gun: start praying!
Maybe I'm a little less concerned about all that because crime here is really low, especially violent crimes. Maybe I would talk differently if I had been robbed at gunpoint once or at least knew somebody who was. But from my perspective guns are not really necessary and they pose a threat = They pose an unnecessary threat.
Let me add, that while I think it is an important debate - especially in the US - I also second that the causes of the problem have to be addressed rather than "solving" the problem by banning guns.
While a ban might not be extremely efficient, fromm my viewpoint a ban (at least on paramilitaric weaponry) would be logical and do more good than bad.

johnny 11-14-2003 03:33 AM

It's an extra lock on the door, it's as simple as that.

Cerek the Barbaric 11-14-2003 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Faceman:
A gun is a tool.
But what for?
Handguns, submachineguns, MGs or assault rifles are tools,
tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently.

Killing or hurting people however is by default illegal, so it's just logic to ban something if its sole purpose is something illegal.
This is why we call them arms rather than tools.
<font color=deepskyblue>I disagree with your assertion that guns are tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently. There are PLENTY of other uses of guns - especially handguns and rifles.

I thoroughly enjoy target shooting with my guns - as do many Americans. And there are many types of professional competitions designed specifically for the shooting of targets. A good friend of mine has competed (and won) in several skeet shooting competitions. I've seen many competitions on TV for handguns. Everything from who can hit the most targets at the farthest distance to who can actually draw their weapon, shoot a number of targets, eject and reload a clip, and shoot some more targets.

While I don't participate on that level, I certainly enjoy going out in the country and blowing a bunch of holes in cans and bottles. I don't own guns for the purpose of "killing somebody more efficiently", I own guns because I like to shoot guns - pure and simple.

While I agree your argument has more merit regarding machine guns or para-military weapons, you seem to have either forgotten (or simply don't know) that these weapons ARE banned from the general populance already. There is no way for an ordinary private citizen to legally purchase an M16 or any other paramilitary weapons (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

Another thing....you invalidated <font color=coral>Maelakin's</font> argument about automobiles being used to kill people because you said that isn't the "primary purpose" of automobiles. OK, fair enough...but in your post refuting all the "common arguments" against gun control, you said this....</font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Faceman:
<font color=white>You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports:</font> And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes.
<font color=deepskyblue>Now THERE'S a perfect example of comparing apples to orangutans if I ever saw one. Guns and nuclear reactors have absolutely ZILCH in common with each other. So don't criticise arguments of others when you have made an even more exaggerated comparison of your own. ;)

As for the argument of home defense, I fervently disagree with you on this, because I have faced the possibility of an armed person breaking into my house. When I was in college, a fellow that was running from the police ended up coming down our driveway (we lived at the end of a dirt road at the time). When the man realized he had come to a dead end, he jumped out of his truck, pulled a rifle from behind the seat, and briefly looked towards the house (apparantly trying to decide if he should try to break in or not). Fortunately, he decided to simply run into the woods instead.

I was sitting in my bedroom watching the whole thing through my window. The only reason I wasn't completely terrified of this guy coming into the house was the fact that I knew my dad was in the living room watching him too, and had his pistol ready in case the guy did come towards the house. I assure you, he would never have made it to the front porch. I didn't have a gun in my room that night...but I did the night after - and I've had one in my room every night since then too.

If we HADN'T been gunowners and the guy HAD come into the house, my parents and I would have had NO OPTIONS, other than to become the hostages of a desparate man on the run from the police. You said earlier that "two guns equal one corpse". Again, you're wrong. It only takes ONE gun to equal one corpse. The question is "Which one do you want to be?". If you aren't the one with the gun, you're the other one.</font>

Faceman 11-14-2003 07:48 AM

Cerek,
I agree with you only on some parts.
I have absolutely nothing against target shooting and if I owned a gun, or was invited to do some I would love to. However, that's not the purpose handguns were invented for. Guns are weapons, and the first handguns have been invented for killing people. Maybe this is misrepresented in some movies, but I honestly don't think that the people in the wild west used their Peacemakers primarily for shooting competitions.
AFAIK there are a lot of guns out there specifically designed for competitions, but some others (and these are the ones I would ban) have to do nothing with target shooting. Be it short-barreled submachineguns (e.g. a Scorpion or a MicroUzi) or really small and inaccurate pistols (like the wild west's classic Derringer). Furthermore modern gun design still includes factors like "stopping power" and they are a buying argument for many people.
I admit, that I don't know which guns exactly are allowed in the US, but I thought to understand that bans are only on single weapons and that some assault rifles ARE available on the free market, as are submachineguns and other full auto weaponry.
This is for example not the case in my country where private persons are only allowed to own handguns (revolvers, or semi-auto pistols) and hunting rifles.
My nuclear reactor example was over the line (i.e. more comical than serving its purpose). So let me rephrase:
Guns are dangerous. Guns can be used for legal entertainment as well as for illegal acts.
Based on the severity of the acts easily possible to commit with a gun (i.e. murder) AND the fact that the specific design of the gun was optimized for that act AND the fact that every other use of it is merely entertainment, based on that facts I'd strongly consider to put a ban on that stuff.
There's a ban on base-jumping currently as far as I understand. It is also a sort of entertainment or a sport, how you call it is up to you. However it is forbidden because it is dangerous. A gun is much more dangerous than a base-jump, so the logical conclusion would be to ban guns.
-
Another example for law (this time in my country) that I don't get on that part is the production and sale of "bongs". Pipes (Hookahs) specifically designed for smoking marihuana/cannabis. While this drug is illegal over here, there is a flourishing business of people selling bongs. These objects cannot be reasonably used for anything else than smoking pot, so why are they on the market? Hell, you can even buy the plants legally here and everything you need to grow pot at your home. The ONLY thing that is illegal is harvested marihuana itself. This - in my eyes - is hypocrisy. There is no other reasonable use for all this than producing and smoking an illegal drug, so I can't figure (actually I can but that's beside the point ;) ) why these things are still legal.
-
So I hope you agree with me that IF a gun has no other use than entertainment, a ban to avoid the dangers connected with private gun ownership may be considerable if these dangers get out of hand.
-
However you argue that a gun has another purpose too, defense/protection. I have already stated several time that there are non-lethal protection weapons (Tazer guns, HighVoltage shockers, Tranquilizer Guns,...) available.
For my very simplicistic equation I got to say, that IMHO not many people (even criminals) shoot right away. They shoot if they are threatened. Something that you can accomplish by carrying a gun. If you don't have a gun, you may become a hostage, but may well stay alive if you keep cool. If you decide to go all Bruce Willis on the guy there's a good chance you're script might not be as nicely written as his. This is my point of view on the case, and one of the main reasons why I don't own a gun.
As I already said, maybe I'm also not so concerned with protection, because my country has incredibly low crime rates. I can walk through any part of my city at any time given time without fear for pickpocketing, mugging or robbing. Only one family I know has been broken into their home (when they were on vacation) and only one person I know has ever been victim to fraud. So maybe I have an easy view on this from a safe haven, but I think it's logical and so I follow it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-14-2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Cerek the Barbaric 11-14-2003 08:30 AM

<font color=deepskyblue>On the issue of home defense. I don't completely agree with you that a burglar with a gun will only shoot if/or when he feels threatened. I've seen plenty of videos from convenience stores where the person behind the counter gave the money to the crook, and the crook shot at them anyway. I saw another video where a man was working late and his young wife had stopped by to visit with him. She was playing video games off to the side when two men came in to rob the store. Her husband gave the guy all the money in the register and did everything the guy asked. But as the robber and his partner turned to leave, the guy - for NO REASON - raised his gun and shot the wife as he walked out of the store. She was sitting on a stool with her hands over her head, not threatening him in any way...yet he decided to put a bullet in her anyway as he walked out. The wife - who was pregnant - was killed. The man lost his newlywed wife AND their unborn child.

I'm sorry, <font color=white>Faceman</font>, but I will NOT leave the safety of my family up to the whims of a crook that breaks in my house.

You mentioned all the "non-lethal" alternatives. Guess what? Non-lethal or not, the robber will still feel "threatened" by them...so he's going to use lethal force while all I can do is hope the Tazer knocks him out before he can fire.

Nope, sorry, no way. The reason homewners get injured when they face a burglar is because most of them "freeze" when they actually are faced with the decison to pull the trigger. But - as I said before - I've already faced the threat of an armed gunman breaking into my house, and I can tell you for a cold hard fact that I WILL shoot him where he stands and I will drop him like a rock. I've been shooting pistols since I was a young boy, and at the risk of sounding egotistical, I am a very good shot. I typically shoot at my targets from a distance of 50-60 ft...and I will hit my target at least 70% of the time. That's shooting at a 20oz coke bottle from 50ft away. You put a human-sized target inside my house, where they will be no more than 25ft away (at the very most), and I can say with absolute assurance that I won't miss a single shot.

And if somebody does break into my house, I'm not going to sit around and wait to see if they decide to present a danger to my family or if they just want to grab some stuff and leave....if they break into my house, I automatically assume they ARE a threat to my family and I WILL protect my family with lethal force. No questions asked.</font>

Skunk 11-14-2003 08:46 AM

<font color="#C4C1CA">The United States is a very special case when it comes to gun controls. No-one knows precisely how many guns are in circulation; conservative estimates put the number as approximately 1 gun for every two people in the country.

That's a lot of guns - and criminals will always have easy access to them. Having said that, I believe that we should control gun-ownership as much as possible and that there is really no 'self-defence' reasons for possessing an MI-16. Law-abiding citizens should also not be fearful of paperwork and controls that govern the possession and storage of their firearms, providing that they still have a right to posess hand-guns (for self defence) and rifles for hunting.
</font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Faceman:

However you argue that a gun has another purpose too, defense/protection. I have already stated several time that there are non-lethal protection weapons (Tazer guns, HighVoltage shockers, Tranquilizer Guns,...)

<font color="#C4C1CA">These weapons are pop-guns when faced with an intruder is armed with a gun or is simply more physically powerful or in a 'crack' frenzy.
A tranquilier gun will not stop a doped up attacker quickly enough to prevent him reaching you, where he might end up killing you long before the drug kicks in.
Tazer guns are one-shot weapons, if you miss or the darts fail to penetrate heavy clothing, you are doomed. There is no reload. And even if you do hit him, what then? You will only temporarily disable him for a couple of minutes - and then he is up again (and don't kid yourself that you can tie up someone who is violently shaking). You could run - but what if he had entered your home? Are you going to run from there and leave him to take what he wants or escape and come back a few days later with a gun and a mind for revenge?

As I say, I don't like gun-ownership, but one has to be pragmatic with regards to the United States as it *is* a special case by virtue of the sheer number of guns on the streets and the relative ease of access to them that criminals have.</font>

[ 11-14-2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Timber Loftis 11-14-2003 09:44 AM

Tasers/Masers have one shot.

Maelakin 11-14-2003 10:30 AM

The example of the automobile is actually a good one. You say that we need automobiles and they provide us with a benefit. Well, we actually do not need automobiles. They are nothing more than a luxury, a convenience.

If the actual reason for supporting a ban on guns is to protect the populace as a whole, then why not spend that money on developing a better mass transit system to remove entirely the need for automobiles? You will save many more lives by following this course of action.

I want to touch upon a few subjects and the counter arguments I have heard.

Self Defense - I have seen it mentioned that in these circumstances all gun ownership creates is a situation where there are two guns and more than likely a dead person. Did you also know that most criminals who are armed automatically attempt to kill their victim if spotted and there is the possibility of being caught? Seems to me the chances are just as good for someone dying whether there are two guns in the situation or one. I prefer to at least have the chance to be the one left alive. The other person made the choice of possibly dying when he/she made the decision to enter my home unlawfully.

When it comes to non-lethal protection, others have already presented good points. However, I have a much simpler point. When you enter my home without my knowledge, you are doing so of your own accord. If I did not invite you to be there, you do not belong there, period. It is not my responsibility to make sure I do not permanently injure or kill someone who has entered my home without my permission.

Sports - If you partake in a sport that uses guns, you should be allowed to own them. In most cases, people who use guns for sporting reasons are some of the safest and knowledgeable owners of guns. In all the people I have met at various ranges, it isn’t the sportsman who is improperly using their arms, it is the common guy or girl who thinks it is either cool to own a gun, or the person who is living in fear and thinks owning gun will give them peace of mind.

If you want to protect people from the harmful effects guns can have, educated them. Don’t remove my right to arm myself because you are afraid of what may happen. Education could solve almost all situations where gun abuse occurs.

If you insist on spending governmental monies to protect the people, refer back to my example of automobiles. They are not necessities; they are luxuries. Use the money to improve the mass transit system and you will have a positive two-fold effect, less auto related deaths each year and cleaner air for everyone to breath.

khazadman 11-14-2003 11:41 AM

You're right on guns Maelakin but wrong on the mass transit thing. In large cities like LA, New York, and Chicago, yeah mass transit makes sense. But not in a small town, or here in the south where we look on vehicle ownership as more of a cultural thing.You must own a car, or more importantly, a truck or suv. You are not complete without it! :D A good analogy of this would be me, living in Sanford NC(well I used to) wanting to go to the nearest mall. That is in Fayetteville about thirty miles away. Why would I wait for a bus to take me there and then have to wait for another for the return trip when I can hop into my truck and drive there? We have mass transit here in south east Virginia and it is a money pit. And now some brilliant politicians want to put in a light rail between Norfolk and Virginia Beach so we can lose even more money.

Maelakin 11-14-2003 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by khazadman:
Why would I wait for a bus to take me there and then have to wait for another for the return trip when I can hop into my truck and drive there?
You have actually illustrated my point very well. The reason you wouldn’t wait is because it is more convenient to jump into your truck and drive there. I stated as much in my opening statement. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I do understand that in some areas it would be inadvisable to remove automobiles entirely, but in contrast most accidents resulting in serious injury or death occur in the major metropolitan areas that do already contain mass transit.

I just stating that as a whole I think people have their priorities backwards. They fight to take away the personal freedoms of others and never pay attention to that which we should be looking to correct. But oh well, in 100 years when my great grandchildren are older and wondering why they can’t own guns, at least they will understand we put time and effort into the correct areas as they breath out of their oxygen masks.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved