Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2007-04-25 14:27:31
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7224|Noizyland

Guns are a privilege here, not a right. Far from guns being banned or even hard to attain, it's just way more regulated so the law knows what guns you have and know what you're going to use them for. It's far from being gun free as the majority of gun-toting Americans fear, one can get a collectors licence and have an arsenal to rival any American's.

That being said, I find no reason whatsoever for civilians to be allowed handguns and military style firearms. Here, we have endorsements of the firearms licence which means you are allowed to own a pistol, (for use on a firing range,) or even military style assault rifles, (heavily modified down to generic semi-automatic rifles,) but honestly there's no reason the have them either.  Reasons:
- Handguns. They're designed to kill PEOPLE. Using them on a range is legitimate usage of them, but what the hell? target ranges are boring . If range shooting was to continue then the ranges should keep a few handguns - not the people who shoot them. The defence argument is irrelevant, one does not need a handgun to defend themselves, especially when handguns will be unattainable by intruders.
- Military style firearms. What the fuck? These are 100% impracticable for the general public to own. You can't hunt with them, (or there is no point of hunting with them,) defending yourself with one is a stupid notion and the firing range debate? Again, a firing range or a military run firing range could keep the firearms for people to come and use. Other than that there are no other purposes for them. Americans, feel easy in the fact that no-one is going to attack your country by the us of military force in the near future and keeping militant groups ready for an invasion is pointless.

Restrictions that American states have on firearms is fucking ridiculous. A three day wait? What's that going to accomplish, especially when the background checks they run are a joke. One gun a month? What the hell does that achieve? Okay perhaps it delays a massacre or two, but other than that you may as well let people buy out the whole shop in a day. You can only operate so many guns at once right?

That's not regulation. That's useless bureaucracy.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2007-04-25 14:30:29
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7082|949

Vilham wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
Banning guns wont work. I dont realy mind if they have guns just aslong as the stop denying that they save lives.

An analogy... I dont care if people smoke, but if they deny it harms their health and others around them I wont let it stand. Ill argue with them that they are wrong.
Guns DO save lives.  They also take them quite often.
2007-04-25 14:31:34
hate&discontent
USMC 0311 SEMPER FI
+69|6838|USA, MICHIGAN
if you don't like shooting paper targets, see if you can get ahold of some bowling pins, now that is fun!!!
2007-04-25 14:32:50
hate&discontent
USMC 0311 SEMPER FI
+69|6838|USA, MICHIGAN

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Vilham wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
Banning guns wont work. I dont realy mind if they have guns just aslong as the stop denying that they save lives.

An analogy... I dont care if people smoke, but if they deny it harms their health and others around them I wont let it stand. Ill argue with them that they are wrong.
Guns DO save lives.  They also take them quite often.
i would rather take someones life, than give mine
2007-04-25 14:33:19
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6844|The Gem Saloon
good post ty.
when i purchased my mossberg 500c 20 ga pump action pistol grip shotgun for home defense, i walked in, paid money, filled out papers and walked to my car with a brand spanking new scattergun.


as much as i love to shoot full autos and military weapons, i still have to agree with you. they are not practical and really serve no purpose short of warfare. however, very RARELY is a weapon like that involved in a shooting.


with that said, i also agree with your statement regarding handguns. however unfortunate it is i will still carry until something is done regarding the safety in my city.

great post though, thanks for the insight.
2007-04-25 14:40:15
hate&discontent
USMC 0311 SEMPER FI
+69|6838|USA, MICHIGAN
i also agree w/ ty, handguns are made to kill there is no getting around that.  full autos are not need by the civilian people, i'll take a bolt action .308 anyday over a full auto, the reason being that i'll tag your ass at 800 yards with one shot.  but i am jelous of ty, he has a silencer for his .22.
2007-04-25 15:00:09
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6844|The Gem Saloon

hate&discontent wrote:

i also agree w/ ty, handguns are made to kill there is no getting around that.  full autos are not need by the civilian people, i'll take a bolt action .308 anyday over a full auto, the reason being that i'll tag your ass at 800 yards with one shot.  but i am jelous of ty, he has a silencer for his .22.
no shit, i need to drive my ass to kentucky if i want one of those.
2007-04-25 16:08:30
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6989|byah

m3thod wrote:

Ban Guns.
Remember in history when alcohol was banned for idn about 5-7years in the 1920s the crime rate when out of control think of what would happen if guns were banned. If anything cigarettes should be banned cause so many people are already against it anyways. Correct me if im wrong isnt the leading cause of deaths in the US is cancer which comes from smoking.
2007-04-25 16:48:59
PureFodder
Member
+225|6735

blisteringsilence wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Stuff I wrote
Well rationed and well thought out. There are a couple of fundamental flaws, however.

First and foremost, I'll start with the shotguns, since that's what I compete with. I own 7. And use each of them for different purposes. I have an automatic shotgun that I use for uplands birds, a pump action for waterfoul, a pump action I use for home defense, a single barrel that I use for trap, a double barrel I use for skeet, and two double barrels that I use for sporting clays/FITASC/5 stand.

Each is different. I have different shotguns becuase I have different needs. There is no one shotgun that will be good for all purposes.

Same with rifles. You use different calibers for different purposes. I have a .270 for deer, and a .300 win mag for things bigger than deer. I used to have a .223 for keeping the pests down, but I gave it to my brother.

My dad, on the other hand, has rifles in 6 different calibers. Again, for different purposes. There is no one "good" caliber for all purposes.

Handguns are the same way. Here, the issues are trading off stopping power for concealability. And again, there is no "perfect" compromise.
If it was a successful way to reduce the number of people getting killed, surely you could accept using a shotgun that isn't perfecty designed for your particular purpose? Speed limits aren't good all the time, when there's a huge stretch of road, perfect visibility and nobody for miles, we still accept driving to the speed limit. It's an inconvenience, but overall the sacrifice is worth the lives saved.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Next is the point Parker brought up. Criminals really don't want to steal a gun to commit a crime. It's way easier to just find a criminal dealer who sells weapons under the table. And with our porous border and minimal port security, it's easy to get guns in here illegally.
Apologies for the really old data, but the FBI don't seem to keep up to date with their stats, from 1995 300,000 guns stolen each year which results in 78% of traced guns originating from the US. Criminal dealers that criminals get their guns from get their supply largely from stolen firearms. That's not just from domestic burglary and mugging, but from theft from firearms shops and depots. Criminals will not likely burgle a house or mug someone with the express desire to steal a gun, but what will happen is they find one while stealing a stereo and looking for jewelry, wallets etc. pocket it and sell it to a dealer who can then supply a criminal who wants a gun. Theft is the largest supplier of firearms into criminal hands hence curbing legal firearm ownership will have a dramatic effect on the numbers of illegally owned firearms.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Penultimately, I feel compelled to bring up again that rifles and shotguns are not the weapon of choice for the vast, vast majority of criminals. They use .22 revolvers and glocks. Putting unnecessary restrictions on weapons that are almost never used in the commission of a criminal act is kind of useless.
I started with the automatics, semi automatic rifles and pump/auto shotguns as they are the ones that have the least practical use and have the largest potential for damage. I agree that the worst offenders in terms of criminal usage are handguns, but people are much less likely to accept restrictions on the type/number of handguns being owned and potential give them up completely if they believe the criminals are running around with assault rifles.
2007-04-25 17:16:46
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7224|Noizyland

hate&discontent wrote:

... but i am jelous of ty, he has a silencer for his .22.
Stealth Possum killing, gotta love it, (even if firing a gun in a residential area is a tad... illegal.)
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2007-04-25 17:45:35
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6844|The Gem Saloon
lol @ tad



here its a felony. and let me tell you how many possums and raccoons try to go through my garbage cans.......
2007-04-25 18:00:06
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7011

Parker wrote:

as many of you are aware, i am a firearms enthusiast and i bump heads with plenty of people on this forum regarding this topic. (bubbalo and vilham for honorable mentions)
You don't bump heads with us for being an enthusiast, you bump heads with us because you use stupid arguments that invariably end in a video of you shooting a gun at a target (because apparently that demonstrates your 1337 $ki11z).

More to the point, your basic history of the US wasn't exactly enlightening, I probably could have written it.  And it doesn't explain anything, other than the US, like many other countries, has a violent history.  Big whoop.  Who doesn't?

Ty wrote:

hate&discontent wrote:

... but i am jelous of ty, he has a silencer for his .22.
Stealth Possum killing, gotta love it, (even if firing a gun in a residential area is a tad... illegal.)
Why do you kill possums?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-04-25 18:01:00)

2007-04-25 18:07:56
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6895|The Land of Scott Walker
I like his videos and his logic beats anything from the anti-gun side.  Up until now this was civil.  How about deleting your post unless you want to contribute to the thread.

Edit: Possums harassed and injured our outdoor pets when I lived in Michigan, so that's why I shot them.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-04-25 18:09:05)

2007-04-25 18:13:38
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7011

Stingray24 wrote:

I like his videos and his logic beats anything from the anti-gun side.
I disagree, there are plenty of people on the pro-gun side willing to have a rational and reasonable debate.

Stingray24 wrote:

Up until now this was civil.  How about deleting your post unless you want to contribute to the thread.
How about no.  How is pointing out the America isn't the only country with a violent history, as well as pointing out to him that his issues with other members aren't to do with his views but how he presents them, not contributing?

Besides which, seen as how he delights in tracking me down in any conversation involving guns and attacking, it's nice to finally see the other side.

Stingray24 wrote:

Edit: Possums harassed and injured our outdoor pets when I lived in Michigan, so that's why I shot them.
Possums aren't native to the US are they?
2007-04-25 18:25:25
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6844|The Gem Saloon

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

I like his videos and his logic beats anything from the anti-gun side.
I disagree, there are plenty of people on the pro-gun side willing to have a rational and reasonable debate.

Stingray24 wrote:

Up until now this was civil.  How about deleting your post unless you want to contribute to the thread.
How about no.  How is pointing out the America isn't the only country with a violent history, as well as pointing out to him that his issues with other members aren't to do with his views but how he presents them, not contributing?

Besides which, seen as how he delights in tracking me down in any conversation involving guns and attacking, it's nice to finally see the other side.

Stingray24 wrote:

Edit: Possums harassed and injured our outdoor pets when I lived in Michigan, so that's why I shot them.
Possums aren't native to the US are they?
dont flatter yourself.
i dont follow you around, i just post in the gun related threads.

now i know you dont agree with me, but i dont just start acting like a dickhead. at least be man enough to own your part in it, or i can find the thread where you had to apologize cause you went over the line.

as much as you dont like to see those videos, they are only posted once the debate has gone seriously downhill. i have started plenty of debates with you where, at the start they were fine, but by the end we were BOTH flaming. own it or not, thats the way it is bubs.

you act like i say "guns are cool" then post a video and that is my debate. you know that is not the case........


"it's nice to finally see the other side." what the fuck? you have seen my "other side" in plenty of posts you might not have read them but they have been there.

see the thing i question with you, and i think this is why our shit winds up in flames, is your experience.

so here we go, i wont question your experience, or your age for that matter if we can manage to keep things civil.

if its agreed then please, lets debate, however i dont want  rehash past experiences.


edit: and i have no idea about if possums are native, but they are some nasty fuckers that will completely destroy my garage if they get in there.

Last edited by Parker (2007-04-25 18:26:20)

2007-04-25 18:26:06
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7152|Little Rock, Arkansas

PureFodder wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Stuff I wrote
Well rationed and well thought out. There are a couple of fundamental flaws, however.

First and foremost, I'll start with the shotguns, since that's what I compete with. I own 7. And use each of them for different purposes. I have an automatic shotgun that I use for uplands birds, a pump action for waterfoul, a pump action I use for home defense, a single barrel that I use for trap, a double barrel I use for skeet, and two double barrels that I use for sporting clays/FITASC/5 stand.

Each is different. I have different shotguns becuase I have different needs. There is no one shotgun that will be good for all purposes.

Same with rifles. You use different calibers for different purposes. I have a .270 for deer, and a .300 win mag for things bigger than deer. I used to have a .223 for keeping the pests down, but I gave it to my brother.

My dad, on the other hand, has rifles in 6 different calibers. Again, for different purposes. There is no one "good" caliber for all purposes.

Handguns are the same way. Here, the issues are trading off stopping power for concealability. And again, there is no "perfect" compromise.
If it was a successful way to reduce the number of people getting killed, surely you could accept using a shotgun that isn't perfecty designed for your particular purpose? Speed limits aren't good all the time, when there's a huge stretch of road, perfect visibility and nobody for miles, we still accept driving to the speed limit. It's an inconvenience, but overall the sacrifice is worth the lives saved.
No, I would not accept using a less than optimal weapon. I am a serious competetor. Someday, I would very much like to shoot in the olympics. That's why I won't take money for winning a tournament, beyond my entry fee. Just like I wouldn't use anything other than my pump gun for hunting waterfowl. I plan to eat those birds. If I miss them, I don't get to eat them.

PureFodder wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

Next is the point Parker brought up. Criminals really don't want to steal a gun to commit a crime. It's way easier to just find a criminal dealer who sells weapons under the table. And with our porous border and minimal port security, it's easy to get guns in here illegally.
Apologies for the really old data, but the FBI don't seem to keep up to date with their stats, from 1995 300,000 guns stolen each year which results in 78% of traced guns originating from the US. Criminal dealers that criminals get their guns from get their supply largely from stolen firearms. That's not just from domestic burglary and mugging, but from theft from firearms shops and depots. Criminals will not likely burgle a house or mug someone with the express desire to steal a gun, but what will happen is they find one while stealing a stereo and looking for jewelry, wallets etc. pocket it and sell it to a dealer who can then supply a criminal who wants a gun. Theft is the largest supplier of firearms into criminal hands hence curbing legal firearm ownership will have a dramatic effect on the numbers of illegally owned firearms.

blisteringsilence wrote:

Penultimately, I feel compelled to bring up again that rifles and shotguns are not the weapon of choice for the vast, vast majority of criminals. They use .22 revolvers and glocks. Putting unnecessary restrictions on weapons that are almost never used in the commission of a criminal act is kind of useless.
I started with the automatics, semi automatic rifles and pump/auto shotguns as they are the ones that have the least practical use and have the largest potential for damage. I agree that the worst offenders in terms of criminal usage are handguns, but people are much less likely to accept restrictions on the type/number of handguns being owned and potential give them up completely if they believe the criminals are running around with assault rifles.
The problem here is that the American public is more likely to accept controls on handguns before they will laws restricting shotguns and rifles. There are 20.6 million active hunters in the US. That means, if these people were in the UK, that one of three subjects hunt at least once a year.

And those people use the weapons you propose banning first. It'd fly like a lead zepplin. You'd never be able to sell it, no matter how logical it seems.

Here's the data:
  • California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."
  • Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."
  • Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.
  • Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."
  • Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.
  • Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.
  • Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."
  • New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.
  • New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.
  • New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.
  • San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.
  • San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.
  • Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."
  • National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.
2007-04-25 18:26:50
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6895|The Land of Scott Walker

Bubbalo wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

I like his videos and his logic beats anything from the anti-gun side.
I disagree, there are plenty of people on the pro-gun side willing to have a rational and reasonable debate.

Stingray24 wrote:

Up until now this was civil.  How about deleting your post unless you want to contribute to the thread.
How about no.  How is pointing out the America isn't the only country with a violent history, as well as pointing out to him that his issues with other members aren't to do with his views but how he presents them, not contributing?

Besides which, seen as how he delights in tracking me down in any conversation involving guns and attacking, it's nice to finally see the other side.

Stingray24 wrote:

Edit: Possums harassed and injured our outdoor pets when I lived in Michigan, so that's why I shot them.
Possums aren't native to the US are they?
I don't dispute there is rational and reasonable debate on the subject and I said I feel his logic beats anything from the other side. 

Feel free to address violent history.  I was hoping we could continue the thread as it was before you chose to take a poke at Parker.  Your feelings could be passed along in PM, I for one, don't care what your opinion is of him because it has nothing to do with this subject.

It was either a possum or a big friggin rat.   Opossum is the correct term, but they're referred to as possums also.
2007-04-25 18:30:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7051|132 and Bush

I know not one American obsessed with firearms. As a matter of fact the number of friends I have that own guns can be counted on one hand, and three of them are in the military.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-25 18:49:09
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7134|United States of America

Ty wrote:

- Military style firearms. What the fuck? These are 100% impracticable for the general public to own. You can't hunt with them, (or there is no point of hunting with them,) defending yourself with one is a stupid notion and the firing range debate? Again, a firing range or a military run firing range could keep the firearms for people to come and use. Other than that there are no other purposes for them. Americans, feel easy in the fact that no-one is going to attack your country by the us of military force in the near future and keeping militant groups ready for an invasion is pointless.
Why can't I own one for the coolness factor? It's like collecting military swords except with a longer range. I don't know of anyone who buys an assault rifle to defend themselves from the Commies (except Phil Cassidy in Vice City) but it's a collectible thing that you fire once in a while. You can have a bunch of fun with any sort of rifle and a deck of cards.

Sondernkommando wrote:

3.  DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
Au contraire

Last edited by DesertFox- (2007-04-25 19:12:31)

2007-04-25 19:02:52
Sondernkommando
Member
+22|7166
1.  In Switzerland, every male is in the army reserve and has at home an assault rifle with 1 pack of ammunition.  Yet somehow Switzerland is not having any problems.

2.  Government represents the will of the people, so if US citizens enjoy owning firearms, they will continue to do so.  Only in dictatorships do citizens get "what's good for them".

3.  DesertFox: that's Voltaire you're quoting, not Evelyn Beatrice Hall (whoever that is).
2007-04-25 19:11:02
The_Mac
Member
+96|6675
I don't think Gun Control is effective anywhere. In Britain, violent crime rate went up. I've been shown charts by UKies denying this, but these charts show non violent crimes, like pickpocketing and burglary. Real statistics report that violent crime has been reported as going up.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-04-25 19:11:34)

2007-04-25 19:14:32
Miller
IT'S MILLER TIME!
+271|7205|United States of America
Criminals don't care about the law. Take the citizens guns and they are left vulnerable. So, against a criminal with a gun, would you rather have a gun yourself or a knife? And now asking, if the criminal had a knife or bat etc, would you rather still have a gun or knife?
2007-04-25 19:23:40
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6895|The Land of Scott Walker
^^^ I would like a .45 pistol please.
2007-04-25 19:26:11
Sondernkommando
Member
+22|7166
Fact is, nobody should rely exclusively on the state for their safety and protection.  Is there a cop on every corner in your town? 

Not in mine, I can tell you that.
2007-04-25 19:30:20
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6795|Twyford, UK
Reasons for obsession:
Men like phallic objects.
They go BANG really loudly and make holes in things from far away.
Killing stuff sates the caveman instinct that the migration to suburbia repressed.
Being able to defend yourself gives you a sense of smug self-satisfaction.
That guy in that movie looked badass with a gun, if you get one, maybe you can too!

Personally, I don't feel the need to own a gun. I know karate, and so if I'm close to someone, I can defend myself or cripple them, depending on mood. If I'm far away, I can just run for it. I can change direction faster than they can aim.
I don't get much urge to kill things. Well, I DO get the urge, just not much that isn't human. If I had a handgun in my pocket, I would be in jail by now for shooting at beggars, annoyingly loud children, chavs, people dithering, slow people, old people, chavs, bad drivers, passing aircraft, low-flying birds, plate-glass windows, anything marked 'explosive' or 'flammable', bright lights, loud noises, chavs, people in the way, traffic lights, and other assorted things.
And yes, whenever I see a helicopter hovering I get the urge to rocket it. I play far too many videogames, and went through a stage of shooting down anything airborne in GTA just to see if the missile could catch up.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard