Guns = Dangerous? (Read the first post first, damnit)

[Flyingdebris]

banning weapons is a crock of shit. All it does is limit my means of being able to defend myself in a legal manner. I believe that detailed background checks and madatory classes are all well and good, but i should be able to buy whatever the hell i can afford.

We live in violent times, but passing laws to make the average person more and more defenseless is not going to help improve matters.

i believe the adage is "they won't ban your hunting rifle, they'll call it a sniper-death-gun first."

also as far the m16, the weapon being meant for wounding is an urban legend. The 5.56 round is designed for maximizing accuracy,range, and being able to carry a larger amount of ammo compared to heavier ammo types. The killing power comes from the large amount of spin and speed on the projectile which makes for random and very deadly wound behavior once it strikes a target. The drawback of all this is reduction in killing power compared to other larger calibers. But it was never designed off the bat to wound and not kill.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

In other words, if you bant guns it would not be impossible to acquire guns, just significantly more difficult.

They are easy enough to make.

 

[Jintor]

Which is odd, but not entirely unexpected. -_-

 

[FieryGoose]

Who ever wants marajuana will get it, whoever wants coke will get it, and who ever wants a gun, they will get it and now law is going to stop them.

 

[Gray Fox]

Who ever wants marajuana will get it, whoever wants coke will get it, and who ever wants a gun, they will get it and now law is going to stop them.

So you are for legalizing coke and marijuana.

 

[VirusType2]

This is something thats always confused me about the US. In a society that is saturated with guns, I would have thought that everybody would have been educated about firearms from a very early age, just so they know not to **** around with them.

Although it may be, It doesn't feel like it's saturated with them. I don't even notice or think about them. It's like a chainsaw or a hammer. It's just a tool. It just sits there, stored away, and is harmless - unless it falls into the wrong hands. I mean, you don't see or hear people firing them, unless you are in some gun specific area.

It really depends on where you grew up, what your family showed you, and what your interests were. In the country, there are shit-loads of hunters.

But not eveyone wants to shoot a gun. My mom is terrified of guns. She doesn't like being around them. Ironicaly, My father and some of my brothers were/are hunters. They like deer meat. I don't like deer meat, so I don't hunt, but I loved guns growing up and did target practice monthly, weekly, even daily at times.

Yea, if anyone had decent parents they know not to play with guns. But, you might agree with me, guns are pretty ****in cool how you can blow shit up. So I played with toy, BB, and pelet guns anyway. Being that I had a caring mother, I did so VERY Carefully. And, at about 11 I did take a very brief hunter/gun safety course at school. When I was older, a freshman in HS, I joined the NRA, and did competition shooting. Then. I got laid, and guns aren't quite as exciting anymore. They bore me.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Whatever your arguments for banning firearms are, I can assure you now, all you anti gun activists are going to be sorry when the zombies come.

The restrictive gun laws are one of the reasons I consider my (and the rest fo the UK's population) chances of survival in the case of a major zombie invasion virtually nill. High population density + low number of firearms (and those that are around are highly restricted in what they are capable of) = very low chances of survival.

In non-zombie related news, I agree with the idea that everyone, whether they ever intend to own a fire arm or not, should be tought the basic rules of gun safety and handling. Like so many other things, education is the key.

Speaking from personal experience I get very nervous around people who dont seem to observe the rules, for instance a mate of mine will pick up one of my airsoft guns (not a real steel, but I feel that any "gun" should be treated with the same respect reguardless of what it is capable of) and will have his finger on the trigger the whole time, will point it here there and everywhere without checking whats where and so on. It may seem odd to others, but that kind of behavior scares the hell out of me.

 

[Terminator]

Farmers of all provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of weapons. If unnecessary implements of war are kept, the collection of annual rent may become more difficult, and without provocation uprisings can be fomented. Therefore, those who perpetrate improper acts against samurai who receive a grant of land must be brought to trial and punished. However, in that event, their wet and dry fields will remain unattended, and the samurai will lose their rights to the yields from the fields. Therefore, the heads of the provinces, samurai who receive a grant of land, and deputies must collect all the weapons described above and submit them to Hideyoshi's government.

Hideyoshi, 1577

 

[Nemesis6]

Gunner, it's not that I don't wanna answer the question personally, I just saw something by Penn & Teller on this issue and it cleared it up pretty nicely: http://video.google.com/url?docid=-...j9282Q&usg=AL29H22JdhLEBK8-DW-SJk1u11MjKgfEOg

But if you must have a simple response: It's not neccesary for them. Since they have the right to do so, they can decide with their best judgment whether or not a gun is the answer. The video above deals with "gun-free zones" and how it's a stupid concept because it gets people killed.

 

[sinkoman]

banning weapons is a crock of shit. All it does is limit my means of being able to defend myself in a legal manner. I believe that detailed background checks and madatory classes are all well and good, but i should be able to buy whatever the hell i can afford.

We live in violent times, but passing laws to make the average person more and more defenseless is not going to help improve matters.

If it's really come to that, then would it not be more logical to look towards reform of our law enforcement agencies?

(I'm pro-gun btw)

 

[Gunner]

Gunner, it's not that I don't wanna answer the question personally, I just saw something by Penn & Teller on this issue and it cleared it up pretty nicely: http://video.google.com/url?docid=-...j9282Q&usg=AL29H22JdhLEBK8-DW-SJk1u11MjKgfEOg

But if you must have a simple response: It's not neccesary for them. Since they have the right to do so, they can decide with their best judgment whether or not a gun is the answer. The video above deals with "gun-free zones" and how it's a stupid concept because it gets people killed.

I'll watch the video after this post, I just thought of something:

How about inserting a RFID emitter in newly manufactured guns, and RFID receivers in sensitive areas such as schools, airports and what not. For example, a police officer enters a school zone, his weapon's signal is picked up by the school's receiver and since it's registered it will identify the weapon as belonging to that officer on a terminal. Obviously you'll need a guy to monitor the terminal. If a student enters the zone with a gun, it sends a signal, and the guy at the end of the terminal notifies security or authorities who go to question/detain/arrest the student.

Edit: watched the video and again that person fails to understand the problem like so many people defending their guns. The argument isn't about guns themselves being dangerous, it's about guns being dangerous in the wrong hands. Arguing that there aren't any mass shootings at gun shows is ****ing retarded. It just shows that you (the lady in that video or Skar for example) fail to understand the problem.

 

[Nemesis6]

Rendering guns invalid/warning/whatnot through electric measures is a bad idea because then people will just start manifacturing old guns, modding the new ones, etc.

 

[Gunner]

Rendering guns invalid/warning/whatnot through electric measures is a bad idea because then people will just start manifacturing old guns, modding the new ones, etc.

Well manufacturers can't lose on this one if it becomes law that by certain date all legally owned guns have to have a RFID chip. Because people will be forced to buy the new models and the gun companies increase their sales drastically during the transition. As for people modding the new ones, well I just had another idea.

Since cell phones can be located by their signals, instead of RFID chips, why not go one step further and incorporate a long range tracking device in guns. It can't cost that much since the technology is in cell phones. A gun is bought at a gun store by John Smith, he goes home and removes the emitter from the gun effectively killing the signal. On the other end, the receiver raises a warning flag in the system that this gun's signal has been terminated on this date. Notifying the authorities who go question John Smith about why he removed the emitter -> fines, jail time, whatever.

And you know what a great side-effect this would have? it would make the old guns which aren't electronically tracked more expensive on the black market. More expensive = less circulation.

 

[Terminator]

Gunner the problem with that tech is that the tracking system can easily go offline, if they happen to have a lead roof or theres certain weather patterns, incidents of battery failure etc, it would be impossible to use in any useful legal matter.
It's also a problem as to where the chip goes in the gun, it would be pretty easy to manufacture a replacement part.

I'm personally against any tracking devices, and before anyone asks i don't use a mobile phone and never will because of the tracking aspect.

 

[Gunner]

Gunner the problem with that tech is that the tracking system can easily go offline, if they happen to have a lead roof or theres certain weather patterns, incidents of battery failure etc, it would be impossible to use in any useful legal matter.
It's also a problem as to where the chip goes in the gun, it would be pretty easy to manufacture a replacement part.

I'm personally against any tracking devices, and before anyone asks i don't use a mobile phone and never will because of the tracking aspect.

Well that's the thing, you can come up with rules and regulations and lay out different response patterns. A gun goes offline, authorities can start by contacting the owner. If there's just a malfunction or a temporary drop off the grid, it'll be solved pretty quickly without incident. If by manufacturing a replacement part you mean taking out the emitter and keeping it online so it doesn't raise a flag. Well I guess they'd have to come up with something to prevent tampering, it certainly doesn't impossible.

But anyway this is all wishful thinking.

 

[FieryGoose]

Aye, but they require a lot of work. You have to know who is selling the drugs, and then have the right amount of money. When you steal a car, you need to plan it and think about or it will or all go to shit. You can't just walk in and take these things.

I don't know about in england, but here in the us, it's easy as hell to get marijuana, there's at least 1,000 growers in our county's 75,000 estimated population, that's not too mention who's dealing it. And of course you have to pay for the drugs, they're not free... Stealing a car is also pretty easy as well, all you have to do is break a window and hot wire it, not so complicated yea. That's not saying you'll get away with doing either obtaining drugs or stealing cars, I'm just saying that if you want to you can, even though it's illegal, so yea, in the hands of a criminal guns can be used as killing machines, and even if they are illegal the criminals are going to get their hands on one without much effort. That's just the facts, i mean looks at the "war on drugs" here in America is that really the route we want to go down? Besides to most people including my self, guns are just an object used to do some target practice, shoot some cans, and hunt for food, I'm not going to kill anyone unless they try to harm me or my family.

 

[Jintor]

I don't know about in england, but here in the us, it's easy as hell to get marijuana, there's at least 1,000 growers in our county's 75,000 estimated population, that's not too mention who's dealing it. And of course you have to pay for the drugs, they're not free... Stealing a car is also pretty easy as well, all you have to do is break a window and hot wire it, not so complicated yea. That's not saying you'll get away with doing either obtaining drugs or stealing cars, I'm just saying that if you want to you can, even though it's illegal, so yea, in the hands of a criminal guns can be used as killing machines, and even if they are illegal the criminals are going to get their hands on one without much effort. That's just the facts, i mean looks at the "war on drugs" here in America is that really the route we want to go down? Besides to most people including my self, guns are just an object used to do some target practice, shoot some cans, and hunt for food, I'm not going to kill anyone unless they try to harm me or my family.

Since whatever we ban people are still going to do it, we should totally let everything happen.

No, I think that something's probably wrong with your mindset as a whole if you keep declaring 'war' on objects.

 

[FieryGoose]

Sorry, but we're not going to ban guns. Just because gun are potentially dangerous, we as a society are not going to let a few people ruin the right for everyone. Guns can be dangerous to humans in mainly 3 different ways, In times of war, self defense and in possession of a psychotic person. And i would dare to say that all killing stems from the last one, If the people who use their firearms for self defense, hunting and target practice don't pose any threat to peaceful society then i don't see any reason for firearms to be taken from them.
I didn't make up the "war on drugs", I'm sorry you didn't know that is a commonly used term here in the states.

 

[Skar]

watched the video and again that person fails to understand the problem like so many people defending their guns. The argument isn't about guns themselves being dangerous, it's about guns being dangerous in the wrong hands. Arguing that there aren't any mass shootings at gun shows is ****ing retarded. It just shows that you (the lady in that video or Skar for example) fail to understand the problem.

I understand your concern. I was making a point about the responsibility of the majority of people who legally own weapons not being unsafe, mistrusting, or dangerous.

What you are asking for is gun control. You wish to limit access to firearms so that fewer will circulate so that fewer will 'end up in the wrong hands'. I think that more firearms in the right hands would cure the problem, but obviously we disagree on the effectiveness of that solution.

Your RFID plan has one big gaping hole in it. Criminals, people bent on killing others like our Virginia Tech friend, etc... do not care for your laws. Maybe you do pass a law that requires RFID transmitters in guns, despite that being a blatant violation of my right to privacy ( not only that, do you really want everyone in the government, and any of their buddies, knowing where, when, and what guns you have?). Now all new weapons have these trackers, but the old ones don't.

Wait, part of the law states that you have to convert the old ones over with this new RFID chip. Outside of communist states like Illinois and New York, how the hell are you going to track down the hundreds of millions of guns in the United States? There are no records for most of these. Any store purchases could be sold off to someone else privately. Many people wouldn't cooperate for that matter. You'd have no hope of getting all these firearms... no hope of getting most of them for that matter.

Now when that student walks through with one of those hundreds of millions of firearms, there is no signal sent off, and your costly, perhaps foolish plan is useless.

And even if there was a signal, it would only give advanced warning much like a security camera does. And while that is a lot of help, I will give you that, it would not stop a determined killer.

I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but your comment about me not 'understanding' irked me and I hate the very idea of this plan being passed.

 

[Jintor]

Sorry, but we're not going to ban guns. Just because gun are potentially dangerous, we as a society are not going to let a few people ruin the right for everyone. Guns can be dangerous to humans in mainly 3 different ways, In times of war, self defense and in possession of a psychotic person. And i would dare to say that all killing stems from the last one, If the people who use their firearms for self defense, hunting and target practice don't pose any threat to peaceful society then i don't see any reason for firearms to be taken from them.
I didn't make up the "war on drugs", I'm sorry you didn't know that is a commonly used term here in the states.

I know you didn't make it up. I'm just saying there's a major problem here if you have to slip Global Warming into your defence budget for anybody to take it seriously. And please don't patronize me.

I think it'd be near-impossible to ban guns effectively anyway. They've saturated your society, and now you can't live without them...

 

[FieryGoose]

I know you didn't make it up. I'm just saying there's a major problem here if you have to slip Global Warming into your defence budget for anybody to take it seriously. And please don't patronize me.

I think it'd be near-impossible to ban guns effectively anyway. They've saturated your society, and now you can't live without them...

Alright, well i agree with you on the last bit. But it would really be a shame if i couldn't take my rifle to the range and shoot some targets, If it weren't for those damned psychopaths we would never have this problem...ah, well, there's no turning back what's happened through guns, we have only the future to look forward to, hopefully a bright on with respect to guns; however I'm not going to count on it, the killers keep on taking it too the next level with all these shootings...
By the way you follow me around everywhere Jintor, haha...I'm going to have to stay on the down low for a while before i can resurface...:afro:
Or am I following you. Sorry I'm not trying too.

 

[sinkoman]

I keep saying it...

IT'S RETARDED TO SAY "UMG MORE PEOPLE WITH GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME".

Yes, logically, that may be so, but even i'd imagine that any sane person would look to reform/rearmament of their law enforcement agencies, before trying to give everybody a gun.

 

[Jintor]

Alright, well i agree with you on the last bit. But it would really be a shame if i couldn't take my rifle to the range and shoot some targets, If it weren't for those damned psychopaths we would never have this problem...ah, well, there's no turning back what's happened through guns, we have only the future to look forward to, hopefully a bright on with respect to guns; however I'm not going to count on it, the killers keep on taking it too the next level with all these shootings...
By the way you follow me around everywhere Jintor, haha...I'm going to have to stay on the down low for a while before i can resurface...:afro:
Or am I following you. Sorry I'm not trying too.

This is a forum, man.

I don't really see how you can have a bright future filled with guns...

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I don't know about in england, but here in the us, it's easy as hell to get marijuana, there's at least 1,000 growers in our county's 75,000 estimated population, that's not too mention who's dealing it. And of course you have to pay for the drugs, they're not free... Stealing a car is also pretty easy as well, all you have to do is break a window and hot wire it, not so complicated yea. That's not saying you'll get away with doing either obtaining drugs or stealing cars, I'm just saying that if you want to you can, even though it's illegal, so yea, in the hands of a criminal guns can be used as killing machines, and even if they are illegal the criminals are going to get their hands on one without much effort. That's just the facts, i mean looks at the "war on drugs" here in America is that really the route we want to go down? Besides to most people including my self, guns are just an object used to do some target practice, shoot some cans, and hunt for food, I'm not going to kill anyone unless they try to harm me or my family.

Yes, but you still have to KNOW someone who deals drugs. Not only that, breaking a window on a car will simply set the alarm off and make you even easier to catch.

 

[CptStern]

I keep saying it...

IT'S RETARDED TO SAY "UMG MORE PEOPLE WITH GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME".

agreed it is indeed retarded because there's no context behind the statement ..crime = jaywalking ..crime also = mass murder ..are they same level of criminality? no. Gun advocacy groups take some stat and twist it out of context "banning guns doesnt work, look at washington dc!" ..ok well lets look at the actual FACTS instead of taking one part of the fact and twisting it to mean what you want it to mean ..while crime rates have risen somewhat is that attributed solely to gun related crimes? well if you look at the facts the gun ban saves on average 47 lives a year ...obviously it's working where it's most important

btw, just in case it isnt obvious, I'm agreeing with you

 

[Tyguy]

We should only gives guns to people that arent criminals :upstare:

 

[CptStern]

Cho wasnt a criminal before his shoot spree

 

[Tyguy]

I guess that smiley didnt encompass my sarcasm, lets try this one

 

[CptStern]

yes I did see the smiley however it was worth pointing out that psychos rarely have criminal records prior to going on shoot sprees

 

[99.vikram]

We should only gives guns to people that are criminals :upstare:

Fixed. Let the trained professionals handle the firearms.

 

[Skar]

We shouldn't give guns to everyone. No one should every be forced to carry a gun against their will (outside of military/cop, and you signed up for that). We should, I believe, encourage people who are legally able to own guns, and are willing to carry a gun to do so. Someone who wants to go on a killing spree could still do so, but in this way more honest people might be able to resist in a rare situation like a mass shooting.

And to those proposing 'tighter' restrictions firearms, I have an honest question not meant to be a debate point: What exactly do you mean tighter regulations? If most psychos, such as our Virginia Tech friend, do not have criminal records prior to their big crime, what is the point of these regulations as these people would pass the check anyway? Unless you mean a UK style ban on pretty much everything...

Edit:

Fixed. Let the trained professionals handle the firearms.

I dare say these 'trained professionals' rarely do you any good. And even when they are there, they are just as dangerous with their weapon as a private citizen.

Again, I encourage you to go out and try shooting yourself if you have not: I think it will be a enlightening experience.

 

[CptStern]

We shouldn't give guns to everyone. No one should every be forced to carry a gun against their will (outside of military/cop, and you signed up for that). We should, I believe, encourage people who are legally able to own guns, and are willing to carry a gun to do so. Someone who wants to go on a killing spree could still do so, but in this way more honest people might be able to resist in a rare situation like a mass shooting.

dont you mean turn the place into a shooting gallery?

possible scenario: Cho walks in, 3 people die, 4 students run with guns drawn kill Cho and the librarian who happened to be behind him. Other students come rushing in guns drawn , thinking the 2 students who just shot Cho are the perps ... gun fire is exchanged the first 2 students are kiled as is one of the new students. countless others are wounded/killed stray bullets the other 2 students thinking the new students are Cho's accomplises start shooting at each other ...when the dust is all settled 231 students have been killed, all with guns still in their hands within feet of their killers, shot dead mexican standoff style

far fetched huh? well to be fair it's just as far fetched as your contention that an armed student body would have taken him down before he went on his murderous shooting spree


possible scenario 2: Cho walks in with pocket knife, being 5'2" and weighing 140 pounds he's easily taken down by two students and a freshman cheerleader on her way to bandcamp ..they pummel him till he cries uncle, cops arive send him to nuthouse

And to those proposing 'tighter' restrictions firearms, I have an honest question not meant to be a debate point: What exactly do you mean tighter regulations? If most psychos, such as our Virginia Tech friend, do not have criminal records prior to their big crime, what is the point of these regulations as these people would pass the check anyway? Unless you mean a UK style ban on pretty much everything...

your laws obviously were not enough ..he was TWICE detained and ordered to go under psychological assessment yet could still purchase 2 hand guns on 2 separate occasions

I dare say these 'trained professionals' rarely do you any good. And even when they are there, they are just as dangerous with their weapon as a private citizen.

I'd much rather a properly trained police officer respond to the scene than some gun weilding lunatic looking to shoot something

 

[Jintor]

I dare say these 'trained professionals' rarely do you any good. And even when they are there, they are just as dangerous with their weapon as a private citizen.

Again, I encourage you to go out and try shooting yourself if you have not: I think it will be a enlightening experience.

I would much rather be around a police officer with a weapon - that is to say, someone who is trained for the situation, and presumably has the ethics etc. that go with being a cop - than to be around just anybody with a weapon.

This may be a perception thing.

 

[99.vikram]

WHy DOES NOBODY UNDERSTAND SARCASM?!! :frown:

Fixed. Let the trained professionals handle the firearms.

Better?

 

[Skar]

WHy DOES NOBODY UNDERSTAND SARCASM?!! :frown:


Better?

Sorry, but sarcasm is difficult to pick up over the internet and especially on a topic such as this with such strong and diverging opinions.

 

[gick]

dont you mean turn the place into a shooting gallery?

possible scenario: Cho walks in, 3 people die, 4 students run with guns drawn kill Cho and the librarian who happened to be behind him. Other students come rushing in guns drawn , thinking the 2 students who just shot Cho are the perps ... gun fire is exchanged the first 2 students are kiled as is one of the new students. countless others are wounded/killed stray bullets the other 2 students thinking the new students are Cho's accomplises start shooting at each other ...when the dust is all settled 231 students have been killed, all with guns still in their hands within feet of their killers, shot dead mexican standoff style

Straw man arguments are fun!

your laws obviously were not enough ..he was TWICE detained and ordered to go under psychological assessment yet could still purchase 2 hand guns on 2 separate occasions

Make it illegal for people with a history of mental health problems to own a firearm.

 

[CptStern]

Straw man arguments are fun!

not really a straw man fallacy as I was specifically addressing this part of his statement:

....in this way more honest people might be able to resist in a rare situation like a mass shooting.

I just chose outlandish scenarios to illustrate my point :E

Make it illegal for people with a history of mental health problems to own a firearm.

you'd think that would be a no brainer ..however that doesnt always work as potential mass murderers could go undiagnosed, which I suspect is usually the case

the fact is stricter gun control could have made a difference in this specific case ... still doesnt mean it's anything more than a stop-gap solution

 

[Jintor]

What happens if you develop a mental health problem but you already own a gun?

 

[gick]

What happens if you develop a mental health problem but you already own a gun?

Then God help us all...

 

[sinkoman]

I think that stricter gun regulations would mean that every few months, you have to check in to the authorities, and report your weapons, ammunition you own, have a rough physical check done, and have a mental check done.

If you fail any of the exams, you have your ability to own a firearm withdrawn.

Nobody can purchase a gun without first passing a test and a background check. No high school diploma? No gun. ANY sort of mental deficiencies, whether they be personality based, or actual mental DISORDERS? No gun. Drunk driving record of any kind? No gun. Any arrest record? No gun. Any sort of history of violence, whether it be a petty scrap back in your freshman year of high school, or a full on gang fight? NO GUN.

It's WAY WAY WAY too easy to get a gun in the US :\