BF2S Forums Gun Free Zones

Spark wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.

I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry.  They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.

Spark wrote:

I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence

What do you suggest?  Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less).  Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range.  I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious).  I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker.  12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.

Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds.  LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits.  I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.

Heavy metal/wooden object will do nicely. The space in my house is such that you can never be further than 3 metres away while still being in sight.

In any case guns aren't exactly a common commodity here.

One thing: Which 'God' explicitly gave you the right to use guns?

Anybody who had experiences with guns would be able to shoot you from 3 meters away unless you are a dog with rabies.
Or unless you are a wiener dog because using bullets for a wiener dog is a waste.

Spark wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.

I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry.  They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.

Spark wrote:

I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence

What do you suggest?  Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less).  Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range.  I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious).  I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker.  12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.

Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds.  LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits.  I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.

Heavy metal/wooden object will do nicely. The space in my house is such that you can never be further than 3 metres away while still being in sight.

In any case guns aren't exactly a common commodity here.

One thing: Which 'God' explicitly gave you the right to use guns?

Good for you!  Most areas are not that enclosed.  In such an enclosed space, do you still have room to swing your club?  If a hypothetical bad guy happened to block that club with his arm...what do you do next?

I don't make arguments for gun-rights based on my religion.  If you are curious, I am a christian. 
The right to self-defense is an inherent right.  If your belief is that it is better to die than resist...that doesn't change my view.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Screwed with a tazer? Keep 12 of them on your belt and dual-wield/discard!

I'd rather keep 1 pistol, thank you.

Spark wrote:

Heavy metal/wooden object will do nicely. The space in my house is such that you can never be further than 3 metres away while still being in sight.

In any case guns aren't exactly a common commodity here.

One thing: Which 'God' explicitly gave you the right to use guns?

I'll respond to your postulations in reverse order:

The "God" that gave me a right to arms is defined as "our Creator." It doesn't get any more specific than that:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America wrote:

...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
...

Mr. Jefferson and company go on to enumerate these rights in a later document.

Second point: In your home, you can never be more than 3 meters from your attacker and still be in sight.

Are you aware of the 7 meter rule?

It states that an attacker armed with a cutting implement within 7 meters of you can attack and kill you before you can draw a weapon from a holster and fire it. You might have a bat. If I have a knife, I can deflect your initial blow, and still kill you with ease. Score: me - broken arm.... you - dead.

edited because I can't spell

Last edited by blisteringsilence (2008-02-25 00:26:37)

Didn't Ted Nugent sing 'Cat Scratch Fever'?

Parker wrote:

heres the brick wall i always run into.
if i give up my guns, criminals will still have them, which puts me at a huge disadvantage.
i dont think there is a way to get all the guns from criminals...i just dont.

well, I'd say that would depend on how far the government and the american people are willing to go, and how much time, effort, and money they are willing to put into this. But since Guns and Bullets don't just magically appear out of thin air, it is certainly possible.

But with the 2nd amendment being as it is, and the gun lobbyists working their asses off, I do believe it is not a question of wether it can be done or not. Rather, it is a question if you want it to happen. Laws can be changed...

To me, the real problem is the american society. It seems to be much more violent than other western societies, with guns and weapons much more embedded into its culture. Because in the end, your laws are merely a mirror of what your nation and your people are really about.
And sadly, atm this includes guns, and gun culture.
I mean, I have even seen people here brag about the number of guns they have, making threads with pics of their guns, etc..
You love your guns, and as long as that is the case, there is little hope that effective gun control legislation will ever be drawn up.

What is it about americans that you keep killing your own fellow citizens in such dramatic fashion ? I am talking about the murder rate per capita here, which is significantly higher than in other western democracies. How do the americans among you explain that ?

"Gun culture" isn't neccessarily a bad thing.  There are millions of responsible gun owners in the US, who never shoot anyone.  Now, if you mean the part of American culture that glorifies "Usin' your GAT on that other nigga," I agree that there is a serious issue there! 

Sure the US could change the Constitution and ban guns.  However, unless we want to eliminate the 4th and 5th Amendments as well, I don't see how we could disarm the criminals.  Outlawing firearms would generate a huge outcry, see many guns turned in...and most importantly, NOT disarm the criminal element of society.  The inherent problem is that criminals by and large do not follow gun laws.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-02-25 07:16:29)

B.Schuss wrote:

Parker wrote:

heres the brick wall i always run into.
if i give up my guns, criminals will still have them, which puts me at a huge disadvantage.
i dont think there is a way to get all the guns from criminals...i just dont.

well, I'd say that would depend on how far the government and the american people are willing to go, and how much time, effort, and money they are willing to put into this. But since Guns and Bullets don't just magically appear out of thin air, it is certainly possible.

But with the 2nd amendment being as it is, and the gun lobbyists working their asses off, I do believe it is not a question of wether it can be done or not. Rather, it is a question if you want it to happen. Laws can be changed...

To me, the real problem is the american society. It seems to be much more violent than other western societies, with guns and weapons much more embedded into its culture. Because in the end, your laws are merely a mirror of what your nation and your people are really about.
And sadly, atm this includes guns, and gun culture.
I mean, I have even seen people here brag about the number of guns they have, making threads with pics of their guns, etc..
You love your guns, and as long as that is the case, there is little hope that effective gun control legislation will ever be drawn up.

What is it about americans that you keep killing your own fellow citizens in such dramatic fashion ? I am talking about the murder rate per capita here, which is significantly higher than in other western democracies. How do the americans among you explain that ?

What we have here is a difference in viewpoint.  It happens over this subject between Americans, so it should hardly be suprising when people who live outside the US do not understand.

The basic viewpoints for gun ownership are based on a distrust of our own government.  Whether you own a gun to defend your life and property, to hunt, or just in case you need to violently overthrow your own government, the belief in gun ownership shows a desire for self-reliance, and an unwillingness to trust your life and livlihood to a government who may or may not care about you.

Yes, it was set up that way.  The men who wrote the rules just had an armed rebellion to overthrow an oppressive government, adn they feared that the government they were creating may end up the same way.  They made the laws to let people have the ability to overthrow the government again, should it prove to be needed.  Home and self-defense are more of the same; we would rather take up the responsibility of keeping ourselves alive than trust it to the police, who will arive in time to clean up.  Hunting and other shooting sports derive from that culture.

Yes, there is a history of the US having a lot of gun violence.  But it is most interesting to note that the majority of gun violence happens in areas that have the most restrictive laws on owning or carrying firearms.  Areas that have concealed carry laws have a much lower instance of gun violence. That is one fact that people who dislike guns avoid like the plague.  A lot of the violence seems to have more to due with cultural influences than the presence of guns.

I am not trying ( or going to try ) to discuss the 2nd amendment and its value today again. We have had that discussion, and it proved to be rather pointless, because of the differences in cultural viewpoints and historic perspectives.

I have come to realize that it is rather unlikely that the 2nd amendment will be changed anytime soon, much less in my lifetime. And in the end, it doesn't matter to me much anyway, because I don't live in the US. Although I do plan to visit one day.

All I am saying is that effective gun control is possible, as exemplified by numerous western nations. You don't have to arm every citizen to get a safe society. But as I indicated, each to his own. However, when one looks at the overall numbers ( murder rate per capita, etc. ) it would seem that the liberal gun laws in the US have not helped to make your society safer.

Why that is remains to be seen. Maybe Americans are - on average - more violent that their european counterparts, or maybe your gun laws aren't liberal enough yet.
From that pov, the following "experiment" would be interesting: make it mandatory for every adult citizen to carry a firearm at all times.
After 5 years, compare the stats and then you'll maybe able to tell if liberal gun laws are really the best way to make a society safer.

Just to re-iterate my point with regard to the OP: with so many guns already in circulation, gun-free zones are basically useless, unless you find a way to effectively enforce that policy. You know, metal detectors and armed security guards at every entrance, etc.

Spark wrote:

As I said before: what we have here is a case of two different cultural views. My society feels perfectly safe without the ability to easily own firearms for personal defence. American society does not. That's life.

However, 'relaxing' gun laws so it becomes as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a car is borderline insanity.

Ironically, I have heard that there are certain states in the US, that won't allow citizens under the age of 21 to buy or consume alcohol, but will allow 18-year-olds to buy firearms. Don't know if it's true though.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

...AND, our second amendment guarantees the right of the people to bear arms.

yeah, but what's the use when you keep killing each other with those arms ?

no offense, just saying....

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Again.  Look at the link. 

165 instances for 1.3 million issued CWP's in 20 years.  Harldy a problem.

well, if it's "hardly a problem", how come Americans keep killing each other at an exceptionally high rate, compared to other industrial nations ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate

don't you think the huge number of guns in circulation, easy availability, and lack of proper gun control play role here ? Or is it just a coincidence that the murder rate per capita in any other western nation that has stricter gun control laws is significantly lower ?

recent numbers:

USA 5,9
United Kingdom 2,03
France 1,64
Spain 1,25
Germany 0,98


As far as stats about firearm-related deaths are concerned, those aren't easy to come by, but here's a stat from the late 90's, just for perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate

Clearly, the number of guns in circulation plays a role in the number of firearm-related deaths, wouldn't you say ?


And even if we assumed that the number of guns in circulation has absolutely nothing to do with those numbers, how do you figure ?
I mean, what do you think is so inherently violent about Americans that it makes them stand out in these statistics ?

Bernadictus wrote:

I can see a reason in having a concealed weapon on your body.
If I'd plan to shoot someone, I'd think twice about it, when there is a chance he is armed.

ironically, I'd argue that the opposite is the case. If I planned to shoot someone who I suspected had a concealed weapon on them, I'd actually be quicker to pull the trigger myself, so that the potential victim cannot get his gun out.

I mean, seriously, how big are your chances to fire the first shot when you first have to pull the gun out, switch the safety to "Fire", aim and shoot, while the criminal has his own gun already pointed at you the whole freakin' time ?

The way I see it, the only criminals that are possibly going to be stopped by a high number of issued CWP's are those who'd have been reluctant to shoot someone in the first place anyway.  The rest will simply pull the trigger more easily.