Burning_Monkey
Moving Target
+108|7084
Proper sight alignment and breathing is the key.

There, I got that out of the way.  Now on to the serious stuff.  I have huge problems with todays gun control laws.  Why is it needed to heep more and more laws on top of laws that already aren't enforced or are the first thing that gets plea bargained away?  Making a Tec-9 illegal by name really helped out a lot didn't it?  Or the ten round cap on magazine sizes.  Or any other laws that have been passed in the last 20 years.  Maybe instead of more laws we should just enforce the laws that are already on the books and see what is wrong there.
MurrayP
PKM Assasin
+0|7056|USA, IL
Bowling for columbine greatly formed my views on gun control....  although i'm not done watching all of it yet, very intresting movie.

Last edited by MurrayP (2005-09-27 20:50:23)

polarbearz
Raiders of the Lost Bear
+-1,474|7036|Singapore

never forget 60-40 grip if you're using a pistol and good posture, relaxed but solid at the same time.

*grin* Anyways, the issue here was always putting the gun in the right hands. Not sure where i saw this idea before, but put a 20 yr old chick and a mugger, if the mugger has the gun then the balance has been badly overturned, gun in the hands of the chick, balance shifts the right way.

Oh yes I remember. Freakonomics.

Anyone read that book before? It seriously IS the best
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7090|Bryan/College Station, TX
Well my views on guns is rather preventive in a way.

I believe that no one under the age of 25 should legally own a firearm of any sort. Hangun or Rifle.
I believe that no one who has commited a felony should own a firearm.
I believe that no one who has commited gun related crimes in the past and has been convicted should own a firearm. Which may fall into the felony clause but I am not aware of all gun laws so I can't be certain.
I believe that no one who has been diagnosed with a psychological disorder who is deemed dangerous or unstable should own a firearm.

I do not believe that an assault rifle or SMG or MG should be available for public purchase at gun stores however can be bought at special regulated stores that do in fact do an extra bit of background checking before selling the weapon. This check would go beyond the standard check that is done. I might even include some sort of additional psychological testing before such a weapon could be acquired.

In truth I do not see the need for the general public to have access to military or full automatic hardware. If they can not deal with a simple handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle then perhaps they should also deal with the additional checks it would take to acquire such weapons.

Do I believe in home defense or personal defense? Yes.  But once again I do not see the need for anything past the 3 types of guns I have listed in such events.  A young woman over the age of 25 who carries a .22 in her handbag for self defense in a bad neighborhood I have no issue with. A person over 25 who has a shotgun in their closet for home defense I do not see issue with. Someone who goes hunting for recreation that has a couple of hunting rifles I do not have issue with. However I really do not see the need for a Hunter to go out with a heavy assault rifle to hunt deer. Is something of this killing power honestly justifiable when hunting?

I also believe that parents with children that have guns within their homes should have them secured with not only a trigger lock but also have them in a safe and secure location. Be it a safe or a lockbox. This must be done to ensure that their child (regardless of age) does not have access to the firearm in any way.

I believe in the right to bear arms to a point. But only to a point.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
mikeshw
Radioactive Glo
+130|7085|A Small Isle in the Tropics

Where I live, there is no such thing as a right to bear arms. It is not a right but an offence. To a certain extent that's why the crime rates are pretty low (and a lot of my American friends are amazed at how safe it is at night, to be able to walk home at 3am without getting shot or mugged, and they envy it). Conversely, when i walked along Wilshire Boulevard in LA, I was concerned that I was going to be some random drive by shooting victim (blame it on American TV for my fears). Imho, when there is a right to own guns, you will have to deal with gun control issues.

Possibly much of the root of the debate surrounding this right to bear arms lies ensconced in the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution:

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

imho, i think this right had at times been twisted out of context into something else.

Unfortunately, as Lenin once said:
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one"
In my many visits to the US, i was amazed that you can actually pick up a rifle from Walmart That will never happen here.

Just an opinion from someone on the outside looking in at your situation from the other side of the globe.

Last edited by mikeshw (2005-09-28 05:24:55)

Guruz
Sir
+20|7085|government yard in trenchtown.
I don't really have an opinion, because Finland has very strict laws IMO and it's very peaceful here because of that (at least compared to America)

Just thought I would post my first post here on the Community section.
CMDR_Dave
Redneck
+66|7088|Missoula, MT
I back up kilroy on every point there.  Nicely said...so much so that I have nothing to add to it. 

Topic closed in my book!

Last edited by CMDR_Dave (2005-09-28 09:54:37)

bluehavoc8686
will frag for food
+11|7087|Pittsburgh, PA, USA

MurrayP wrote:

Bowling for columbine greatly formed my views on gun control....  although i'm not done watching all of it yet, very intresting movie.
I saw it a few years ago. Without flaming the shit out of Michael Moore (though I'd love to and have many times in the past), let me just advise you to look up the research yourself since Moore's views, you must remember, are terribly biased. Most of the statistics and interviews in his movie are edited and tampered with so that they represent what he is trying to proove. All I'm saying is: be careful before forming strong opinions one way or the other.

Hint: the statistic he presents on the # or gun-related deaths per country: notice that he never factors in the size of the population. For instance, sure there will be less gun-related deaths in England, it's population is about an 8th of the U.S. population.

Anyway, I think that some gun control is vital because there are too many crazies out there. For example, I'm a firm believer in decent background checks before purchasing firearms. Also, I think there should be stricter penalties for criminals who are arrested for a crime when they were using a gun or had one in their posession. However, I strongly believe that it is our right as Americans to own as many firearms as we like (and whatever type, within reason i.e. no RPG's and that sort). In a town near my hometown of Atlanta called Kennesaw, every citizen is required to own a gun and guess what, the crime rate there is extremely low.
Krauser98
Extra Green Please!
+53|7077|USA! USA! USA!
The proper Army acronym is BRAS.  Breath Relax Aim Shoot.  Works every time. 

Sorry, I'm not going to get into this type of serious debate, because I would probably end up banned from BF2s.com.
chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|7095|"Frisco"

I echo killroy's sentiments in this regard. Well said.
Greenie_Beazinie
Aussie Outlaw
+8|7060
IRT - bluehavoc8686 .. pretty much everyone is biased on everything. There's no such thing as neautral opinions.

IRT - Topic: I don't see any need for guns.. they don't contribute to quality of life or help with much. If people want to be macho and defend themselves they should learn to fight with their fists. I don't mind sport shooting though, but I think the weapons should be under lock-down at the local firearms club.
bluehavoc8686
will frag for food
+11|7087|Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

IRT - bluehavoc8686 .. pretty much everyone is biased on everything. There's no such thing as neautral opinions.

IRT - Topic: I don't see any need for guns.. they don't contribute to quality of life or help with much. If people want to be macho and defend themselves they should learn to fight with their fists. I don't mind sport shooting though, but I think the weapons should be under lock-down at the local firearms club.
A noble and idealistic view, but when guns have been removed from citizens in various countries in the past, the government no longer has any restraint and if moral negligence is applied, serious problems occur. I agree that fighting with the fist is a chivalric idea, but unfortunately, the looser tends to be a bitch and go and get guns so then what do you do? Let him shoot you?

As for bias, sure everything is bias to a certain degree as polling and statistics teaches us, but in this particular case, the facts are not fact, but rather what one man views as a realistic approach to gun control.
Krauser98
Extra Green Please!
+53|7077|USA! USA! USA!
You can't take guns away.  What you think a criminal is going to stop because a law says he has to come turn in his gun?  No.  Then you just let the people with the guns know for sure that the people they are after don't have them...

Edit: Oops.  I said I was going to stay out of it.  I'm personally biased, because I don't want them to come take my arsenal away.  Yes, I have many guns.  They each serve a very seperate purpose though.

Last edited by Krauser98 (2005-09-29 15:00:52)

Greenie_Beazinie
Aussie Outlaw
+8|7060

bluehavoc8686 wrote:

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

IRT - bluehavoc8686 .. pretty much everyone is biased on everything. There's no such thing as neautral opinions.

IRT - Topic: I don't see any need for guns.. they don't contribute to quality of life or help with much. If people want to be macho and defend themselves they should learn to fight with their fists. I don't mind sport shooting though, but I think the weapons should be under lock-down at the local firearms club.
A noble and idealistic view, but when guns have been removed from citizens in various countries in the past, the government no longer has any restraint and if moral negligence is applied, serious problems occur. I agree that fighting with the fist is a chivalric idea, but unfortunately, the looser tends to be a bitch and go and get guns so then what do you do? Let him shoot you?

As for bias, sure everything is bias to a certain degree as polling and statistics teaches us, but in this particular case, the facts are not fact, but rather what one man views as a realistic approach to gun control.
But if guns are removed and heavily regulated then the loser wont have any access to guns. Here in Aus we cant own a gun (unless its a .22 or 2xbarrel shottie on a 200 acre+ property) and no pistols. We have a large brawling culture, and as a negative theres alot of fights and bashings - but i rarley hear of shootings.
SpanktorTheGreat
Bringer of slight pain and mild discomfort.
+1|7061
I always find it interesting that there is so much attention paid to firearms. We live in a country that manufactures automobiles that allow the citizens to travel at speeds well over 55mph, logically no one needs to travel this fast to get to point B. Firearms deaths really can’t compete with the amount of innocent men, women, and children who die so violently in auto accidents each year. Where are all the people protesting the manufacturing of cars that roll over easy, and cars that can travel well over the speed limit? How about tougher moving violation laws? NO! How about more strictly enforced roadways? NO! How about a ban on driving altogether? NO! Ok I’ve got it, when we make cars lets just limit them to 35mph with big, I mean really big, rubber bumpers, yeah and no one is allowed to drive until they are 25 years old! OK! Sounds good! HooRaaayyy!

I live in the hood (Pontiac, MI, go ahead and google the crime rate for this city). Right now, down the street there are some people lifting weights in their front yard. The gas station I’m looking at right now, a man was carjacked there this summer. They got his car and wallet then they left and then they came back to shoot him, he’s dead; the murders were 17 and 19 years old, not old enough to own the gun they used. I hear gunshots all night and every night.

Point #1-If you take away every law abiding citizen’s firearms guess what? I’ll still hear the gunshots at night. This city doesn’t have the capital to protect it’s own citizens.

Point #2-True change comes from the inside of an individual, not from laws or government programs. Take away the guns and you have the same old misfortunate poor bastard, mad at the world, whose parents were too selfish to invest in his/her future. Sad but true!

Point #3-If something is to happen to this area like; natural disaster, drinking water sabotaged, power grid sabotaged, anything that will make times hard around here, and it happens as a planed attack on multiple areas from within this country at the same time, who do you think I will be defending myself from? The morons, thieves and thugs of this city, that’s who! Not terrorists! I will have to use force to get out and head north where it’s safe.

I legally possess an assault rifle, 12ga pump shotgun, and a .45 semi auto pistol, with enough ammo for a whole city block.  Are my wife and kids getting out with me if the crap hits the fan? You’re damn right they are!

    I hate guns, but I respect them as tools, and they are necessary unfortunately. The best kind to have is one you never have to use to defend yourself with. As far as locks, safes, and kids, hey when my kids are old enough to rack a round in a chamber of a firearm then they will be old enough to go to the range with me and see what a firearm is. I got my first 20ga when I was 11.

Sincerely,
Mike
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7090|Bryan/College Station, TX
SpanktorTheGreat:  On your comparison of guns and cars I can only say that in today's society time is of greater value and transportation is a means to further society. Do guns further society and save time? Not a very good comparison. Yes both the automobile and guns kill people all the time. But very few instances are car used to specifically kill another person. They are accidents. It is far less frequent that a gun kills someone by accident. A grand majority of gun related deaths are malicious and on purpose. So comparing cars and guns isn't a good argument. Find another one.


SpanktorTheGreat wrote:

I live in the hood (Pontiac, MI, go ahead and google the crime rate for this city). Right now, down the street there are some people lifting weights in their front yard. The gas station I’m looking at right now, a man was carjacked there this summer. They got his car and wallet then they left and then they came back to shoot him, he’s dead; the murders were 17 and 19 years old, not old enough to own the gun they used. I hear gunshots all night and every night.
I'm sorry to hear that you live in a crappy neighborhood. I hope nothing every happens to force you to use your firearms to defend yourself.

Point #1-If you take away every law abiding citizen’s firearms guess what? I’ll still hear the gunshots at night. This city doesn’t have the capital to protect it’s own citizens.
A grand majority of normal citizens require anything more than a handgun, shotgun or rifle in order to defend themselves, their home and their loved ones. Regulation of firearms does not take away the ability to acquire firearms for normal everyday citizens above the age of 25.

Point #2-True change comes from the inside of an individual, not from laws or government programs. Take away the guns and you have the same old misfortunate poor bastard, mad at the world, whose parents were too selfish to invest in his/her future. Sad but true!
Except now when he flips out he will run around the school with a butcher knife and most likely be stopped quicker than two teenagers taking a school hostage with guns.

Point #3-If something is to happen to this area like; natural disaster, drinking water sabotaged, power grid sabotaged, anything that will make times hard around here, and it happens as a planed attack on multiple areas from within this country at the same time, who do you think I will be defending myself from? The morons, thieves and thugs of this city, that’s who! Not terrorists! I will have to use force to get out and head north where it’s safe.

I legally possess an assault rifle, 12ga pump shotgun, and a .45 semi auto pistol, with enough ammo for a whole city block.  Are my wife and kids getting out with me if the crap hits the fan? You’re damn right they are!
This is a very extenuating circumstance in which hopefully you will never have to deal with. But if it should happen I believe that firearms that are available would be adequate enough for protection. Do you believe that an Assault Rifle will suddenly make you more safe in this situation?  It only takes one or two bullets to take someone down. I can achieve the same stopping power without an Assault Rifle. But that's just my opinion.


I hate guns, but I respect them as tools, and they are necessary unfortunately. The best kind to have is one you never have to use to defend yourself with. As far as locks, safes, and kids, hey when my kids are old enough to rack a round in a chamber of a firearm then they will be old enough to go to the range with me and see what a firearm is. I got my first 20ga when I was 11.
I do not believe that children should be shown how to use weapons until they are old enough to understand the severity in which a weapon would be used. If you choose to teach your child to fire a weapon then it should be done in a very strict fashion and entirely supervised. If you take you child hunting with you I expect that child to be trained and knowledge on how to use a gun safely. I expect that gun to be locked away safe when not in use and I do not expect to see a child have convenient access to a firearm.  The stability of children is in question and hormones can play nasty tricks on judgement. Common sense isn't all there also. Kids do stupid things, we all know this, we did them to. I will not however introduce a situation in which a child can make a stupid thing into a very deadly thing just because I choose not to take every procaution to secure my weapon.

If you choose to teach your children how to use guns then I expect you to be a responsible parent and take every procaution to make certain your children are not allowed at any time to use their guns in the wrong way.

Those are my opinions.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
SpanktorTheGreat
Bringer of slight pain and mild discomfort.
+1|7061

kilroy0097 wrote:

SpanktorTheGreat:  On your comparison of guns and cars I can only say that in today's society time is of greater value and transportation is a means to further society. Do guns further society and save time? Not a very good comparison. Yes both the automobile and guns kill people all the time. But very few instances are car used to specifically kill another person. They are accidents. It is far less frequent that a gun kills someone by accident. A grand majority of gun related deaths are malicious and on purpose. So comparing cars and guns isn't a good argument. Find another one.

I'm sorry to hear that you live in a crappy neighborhood. I hope nothing every happens to force you to use your firearms to defend yourself.

A grand majority of normal citizens require anything more than a handgun, shotgun or rifle in order to defend themselves, their home and their loved ones. Regulation of firearms does not take away the ability to acquire firearms for normal everyday citizens above the age of 25.

Except now when he flips out he will run around the school with a butcher knife and most likely be stopped quicker than two teenagers taking a school hostage with guns.

This is a very extenuating circumstance in which hopefully you will never have to deal with. But if it should happen I believe that firearms that are available would be adequate enough for protection. Do you believe that an Assault Rifle will suddenly make you more safe in this situation?  It only takes one or two bullets to take someone down. I can achieve the same stopping power without an Assault Rifle. But that's just my opinion.

I do not believe that children should be shown how to use weapons until they are old enough to understand the severity in which a weapon would be used. If you choose to teach your child to fire a weapon then it should be done in a very strict fashion and entirely supervised. If you take you child hunting with you I expect that child to be trained and knowledge on how to use a gun safely. I expect that gun to be locked away safe when not in use and I do not expect to see a child have convenient access to a firearm.  The stability of children is in question and hormones can play nasty tricks on judgement. Common sense isn't all there also. Kids do stupid things, we all know this, we did them to. I will not however introduce a situation in which a child can make a stupid thing into a very deadly thing just because I choose not to take every procaution to secure my weapon.

If you choose to teach your children how to use guns then I expect you to be a responsible parent and take every procaution to make certain your children are not allowed at any time to use their guns in the wrong way.

Those are my opinions.
analogy:

1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand

The comparison I’m making between guns and cars is a valid point. They are both made by man, they are both tools, they each have needless available options that make them more dangerous, and people die because of the use of both.

You need not be sorry about where I live. I choose to live here at this point. My mortgage is cheap and college is only 5min away, so it works for us now.

Anyone who thinks that a rifle can be used for home/personal defense needs to be educated on firearms. Regulations of firearms do not stop criminals from killing people; they take away rights and options from law-abiding citizens.

Your logic is idiotic. People can “flip out” and douse gasoline on other people and set them on fire, or set buildings ablaze. Regulating the available methods of killing each other will not help to fix the cultural break down in this country.

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself on firearms.

One word: discipline. My weapon is useless to me if it is locked away at night. My home defense weapon is my shotgun. I keep it loaded and under my side of the bed at night. A toddler is not capable of pumping the shotgun, and that’s what has to be done in order for the weapon to become dangerous. My rifle is locked up along with my pistol. I will be getting my concealed carry permit in 2006 for my pistol.
Home
Section.80
+447|7095|Seattle, Washington, USA

I really don't think guns should be taken away completely, because then none of the regular people would have any for self defense, but the bad guys would just make some illegally. I think the real answer is to better discipline the sales of guns. I mean, rifles at Wal-Mart? We don't need that. I also think that instead of selling regular bullets, they should sell some that don't kill people. They would just knock the person out for 30 minutes, until the cops came.
bluehavoc8686
will frag for food
+11|7087|Pittsburgh, PA, USA
I believe it is Walmart's right to sell firearms. The regulation of gun sales needs to be reformed more in the actual backgroud check. The only situations that have proved potentially dangerous in the past do to the retailer are gun show expos. There have been lots of accidents at gun shows, so maybe tighter security for the shows and higher penalties if your weapon causes a problem.
oh-godzilla
Member
+0|7038|Germany
i think its in human nature to be violent and it doesnt matter if a country allows guns and firearms or not there will allways be criminals. The question is how violent they are and how to decrease offenses.
The same discussion is on higher punishments. There´s still people who say higher punishments would decrease indictable offenses or at least discourage criminals...
The only way to decrease the rate of criminals is to fight aggainst the cause why those people act like this.
poorness, desperation, uncertainty .....
Its the same with the terrorists: you have to find out why they become so and how to convince younger people not to get one.

For me i feel much saver in a place with no (or much less)weapons, but on this everybody has his own opinion.

OK it´s a long time ago since i was in the USA but i found it astonishing and questionable that its easier to get weapons in Supermarkets than healthy bread or milk.

i apologize for my bad english...
Sarum
The Angry Geek
+11|7094
Suprisingly enough, I don't require a handgun to defend myself. (And the guys who mugged me several years back didn't need a gun to do so. Which is probably why I'm currently alive and typing this. I value my life more than the contents of my wallet, so I'm pretty glad most criminals don't carry firearms over here.) A little common sense will suffice in most areas of the UK. Yes we have a much smaller population than the US, but even with that factored in we have a tiny number of gun-related crimes compared to you guys. Considering that we don't have any "right to bear arms" in our consitution, gun crime is high - ie, it exists. Virtually nobody who commits gun crime here legally owns the weapon. But the number of crimes is still tiny compared to the US.

However, the gun issue is a pandoras box. Once you've let it out, you can't put it back in - as many people have pointed out, now so many people have guns, normal people and criminals alike, you can't go trying to take them away.

As Monkey said, I think the key is proper enforcement of the laws (not that I know them very well), and maybe closing down some loopholes in those laws. And probably some education to get people to keep their handguns out of the hands of their 5 year olds. The number of deaths caused by "accidents in the home" with the weapon intented to protect the inhabitants of that home should really be a lot smaller than it is.
-=Rekvisita=-Blyant
Member
+0|6995|Norway
Well, I'm from Norway, and what I can't understand is what the heck would any normal person need a smg, mg, ar, or any other weapon for that sakes besides ones used for normal hunting on game? And real smart to put liquor stores and gun stores next to each other ya? Here in Norway you have to file an application with the police and they do background checks and you need to take a hunters license first.
Varsol
Member
+1|7006

-=Rekvisita=-Blyant wrote:

Well, I'm from Norway, and what I can't understand is what the heck would any normal person need a smg, mg, ar, or any other weapon for that sakes besides ones used for normal hunting on game? And real smart to put liquor stores and gun stores next to each other ya? Here in Norway you have to file an application with the police and they do background checks and you need to take a hunters license first.
Unless you procure a special licence, full automatic weapons are illegal in the US. Certanly gun control is nessecary to a point. It's just when the laws become absurd and pointless.

Like in California, they were trying to pass (maybe they have) a law where a serial number is supposed to be engraved on every round and casing. Sounds good in an ideal world, untill you think about how recognizable that number is going to be after it goes through the rifleing, or deforms on whatever it strikes. It's also going to add an extremely large burden on ammunition manufacturers, which will be passes onto the consumers (legal gun owners).

At the same time criminals will still be able to get their unmarked ammunition in the next state. So law abiding owners are having to take up large expenses in buying ammo, criminals are still using unmarked rounds, and the politicians give themselves a pat on the back for a job well done.

The list goes on (bayonet lug, Massatuchets loaded chamber hole thing, 10 round mag), and I only find it troublesome when it doesn't make any sense. Hell no we don't need fully automatic weapons. I was a federal officer for 2 years, and I would like to see a world where firearms don't exist. It's just not practical, and not going to happen. All we can do as citizens is handle our weapons responsibly and do what we can to keep common sense in our laws
t3c9
Member
+3|6992
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7017|AUS, Canberra
here in aus most people have never seen a gun in real life,
you cannot have pump action shoties,
no auto or semi auto rifles of anykind. (unless you have militery collectors liscence, very rare!!)
to get a hand gun you need to do 12 weekend shoots at the club then pay your membership fee every year and you have to go to regular club comps or they will take it away.

can only get a gun liscence if you are member of the gun club and shoot there a few times a year or you have a signed letter from a property owner allowing you to shoot there.

canberra is the capital of aus and we have 1 or none shootings a year.

can any other capital of a developed country say that?

Last edited by the_heart_attack (2005-11-10 12:42:42)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard