Gun Control
Dezmodium
Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1575Members
Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1575Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">up, up and away!</div> How is the Ns communities feelings on gun control?
Personally I think that gun control is bad. Self preservation is the highest law.
On one hand, gun control might be good to stop crimnals from murdering helpless civilians.
On the other hand, Laws don't stop criminals from acquiring illicit drugs. Laws also do not stop criminals from getting guns. Besides, if a criminal knows that 99% of the population is unarmed, they can commit crimes such as murder and rape without fear that their victim is going to put up an armed fight. When a crimminal cannot distinguish an armed civilian from an unarmed civilian, they are less likely to commit a crime but rather move to another location were their prey is more helpless.
Also, I have also noticed that many gun opposers also agree that that oppressed people should liberate themselves. With what should they do this with? Guns. So by saying that one would be advocating the possesion of firearms by the civilian for the purpose of self-defense.
"But, we don't need guns in america because we aren't being oprressed." That's exactly right. And if we keep our guns we ensure that we never will be.
Personally I think that gun control is bad. Self preservation is the highest law.
On one hand, gun control might be good to stop crimnals from murdering helpless civilians.
On the other hand, Laws don't stop criminals from acquiring illicit drugs. Laws also do not stop criminals from getting guns. Besides, if a criminal knows that 99% of the population is unarmed, they can commit crimes such as murder and rape without fear that their victim is going to put up an armed fight. When a crimminal cannot distinguish an armed civilian from an unarmed civilian, they are less likely to commit a crime but rather move to another location were their prey is more helpless.
Also, I have also noticed that many gun opposers also agree that that oppressed people should liberate themselves. With what should they do this with? Guns. So by saying that one would be advocating the possesion of firearms by the civilian for the purpose of self-defense.
"But, we don't need guns in america because we aren't being oprressed." That's exactly right. And if we keep our guns we ensure that we never will be.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gun control is a MUST. Should private citizens be allowed to own weapons with armor-piercing capability? My friend, who is 17 years of age, purchased an AK47 with his other friends help. An ak47.
Ok, you say that criminals obtain guns illegaly and the only way to deter them is to be armed yourself. That, my good sir, is total *excrement of a male bovine*. My girl-friend lives in Harlem, 108th and riverside West. She has lived there for about 7-8years, and before that she was at roughly 135th and broadway. She lives in the thick of Harlem and never once has been mugged, accosted and she has never seen a murder.
What could be so important in your wallet as to risk your life over? What is so important about your car? What is so important about your possessions? If you don't have a gun, then a criminal might choose you as easy prey, but you won't risk anything by giving him just what he wants.
I saw Bowling for Columbine and last year the U.S.A. had 11k or so gun-murders, with a quarter-billion guns in the U.S.. Canada, with about 7 million guns and 30 million people had 116.
Try reading the book <i>Trigger</i> by Arthur C. Clarke. It's a great book.
and I agree with a Chris Rock joke about gun control. We don't need gun control, we need bullet control. bullets @ 5k a bullet would eliminate innocent bystanders. "Damn, he musta done somethin wrong, he got shot".
And don't say U.S. gun murders are a matter of population density. Holland has a much higher population density, legal marijuana and a bunch of other stuff but they didn't even get in the top 5 countries for gun-murders
Regarding Gun Control in general, it's useless. Gun Control is <i>suppose</i> to keep Guns out of the hands of criminals and those with malicious intent. The problem is, how many criminals register their guns? How many criminals buy guns through legal means?
Just wanted to add that some kind of regulation may be necessary but Gun Control (in Canadian terms) is ineffective.
Also, its not about protecting your possesions but yourself. Just because you arent armed doesnt mean that the guys robbing you at the corner store isnt going to kill you regardless. Besides, lets not argue about posessions and objects. They can be much more to someone who holds them dear. Ask a man about age 26 whos is rubbing his fathers name off the wall in washington DC if that wall is just a wall to him? If you are going to think like that then why have any monuments or keep any old peices of art or anything like that? After all the are just stupid material things and possesions.
"Its not worth your life" exactly because i wont let my life become endangered. Not if a pistol and a concealed weapons permit has anything to say about it.
The fact of the matter is that criminals and oppressors will always have guns and other dangerous weapons. Were slaves allowed to have guns? No, because a man with a gun is going to prootect his basic human rights. The right to be free, the right to live, and the right to persue happiness in whatever fashion he chooses (as long as it doesn't hurt others)
The U.S., as it stands right now, hasn't faced a threat from invasion in nearly 250 years. Do you think criminals would be so heavily armed if we didn't have such lax gun control? I remember like 4-5 years back a couple of bank robbers with kevlar vests and AK47's (purchased legally mind you) managed to wipe out about 8 cops after robbing a bank. The cops were wearing their own kevlar but 7.76mm vs Kevlar = dead guy, while the cops, with their measly beretta's couldn't touch the guys.
I'm not advocating gun control around the world, just the united states. We have such a hard time not killing each other, while other countries (Switzerland) can have private citizens with full-auto rifles in their closet and not even make the top 5 gun-death list.
Do you realize that if it comes down to a gunfight, your dead already because even if you wound them, a gun is still deadly, whereas you wound them with a knive and then step away, while they write in pain on the ground they can't stab you.
Is there <i>any</i> purpose to a gun other than to injure, cripple, or kill other human beings (don't tell me you're going to go hunting with your Glock)?
Then why do we have to discuss their outlawing?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there any purpose to a gun other than to injure, cripple, or kill other human beings <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. But then again, whose to say that the victim was innocent, I surely wouldn't argue with someone shooting a criminal in the leg in defense, especially if say, their family was at risk.
Also, what other purpose do cigarettes have than to injure, cripple, or kill human beings, when used properly they kill you
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> . But alas, that is an entirely different topic.
For the states, I often hear about it being the home of the free? So surly the decision as to whether to arm yourself in defence is up to the individal. After all, I have just proved that the criminals will still get guns.
And before people start comparing gun statistics from foreign countries (I assume this thread is about American gun control) remember that if something works for one country doesn't mean it'll work for another.
Here's the website where I found my information:
<a href='http://www.stats.org/newsletters/9904/gundata.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.stats.org/newsletters/9904/gundata.htm</a>
Note the large difference between reported crimes/crime preventions and their actually estimated number (since many go unreported).
Even though I may be the only one, I don't exactly know, what would be done if gun control was enforced. What does it meen? Are they regulating who gets which weapon or is noone allowed to have a gun anymore? I'm kinda firm on the actual situation in Germany and the US, but would change, when gun control is enforced? Someone please enlighten me.
Since I have some relatives and friends in the states I at least know, that for most of them having a gun at home is completely normal. My aunt, living alone has at least 3 shotguns in her house. Her ex, who repairs cars in his own shop has one right behind the entrance door. If you were to rob him, you'd have a gun right there. A friend of mine, even when he was 16 had at least two pistols and a rifle.
I don't know, but to me that is kinda strange. The worst thing I got at home are 4 swords on display stands. Somehow the mentality is just completely different in the US, people are much more likely to pull a gun, if you annoy them.
Just on a sidenote, I live in the city with the second highest crime rate in Germany and have never ever in my life been attacked, robbed or even looked at strange. Crime seems to be kinda subtle here, I guess.
If you read the laws involving a concealed weapons permit in the US you would see that this is not a matter of just carrying a gun to hurt anyone who may possibly be a menace.
- To pull a gun on an attacker you MUST have no other choice or you can be jailed for murder.
- If you have no other choice and pull a gun on an assailant you MUST kill them. If you do not they can sue the **** out of you.
- You are not allowed to use a gun to scare away a victim. This is against the law.
- You are not allowed to persue an assailant after they flee the scene of the crime.
- If a robber breaks into your house you are not allowed to go into the room they are in with a weapon. You have to let them come to you. If they are going into a family members room and you KNOW FOR A FACT that they ave a deadly weapon or have malicious intent to severely harm and/or murder said family member only then are you allowed to leave your current room to go and protect your loved one.
As far as how the US isnt threatened for invasion:
Opressors are usually those who are part of the government. Who's to say that twenty years down the road the US doesn't get overthrown by fascists? Chances are that this won't happen. Why? Because armed civilians are prepared to protect their freedoms. And always remember: Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
It is all a matter of who has the bigger guns and since criminals with guns are such a problem in the US, everybody has to have one to protect his life. Then again, the criminals of course need bigger guns, because all the normal people are armed to the teeth. Cold War ended because one side couldn't keep up anymore, but I don't think anything similar will ever happen within the country, since restocking your household is just so much easier than a whole nation.
Concerning those laws you mentioned, Dez, do you actually believe that many people know them as well as you do, or actually care about them once anybody is inside their house?
Maybe I should have mentioned on that last post, that all the people I know, live in Texas... does it make a difference? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
As far as "gun control" goes to small children, perhaps between 5 and 10 years old...in my eyes the best way to stop them from accidentally shooting themselves or their friends when mommy & daddy are away is to teach them to fear and respect it.
It's just like an infant learning not to go near a radiator because it's hot (I'm talkin old school baseboard or steel radiators like I grew up with <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) - or the range(stove/oven) for that matter. Knives fall into this same category, my 3 year old cousin knows well the dangers of knives - not out of personal experience - yet - but out of repetition of warnings from her parents and relatives such as myself.
I don't feel that firearms are any different - they just require a bit more understanding and thought process to comprehend. A knife will cut, you do not have to prepare it at all. A firearm, if kept properly in a household, will either be in a safely locked box, a rifle cabinet, or dismantled somewhere that a child cannot get to it (...easily -- we all know that children are smarter than we give credit for).
"Smart guns" as they're commonly called are only useful in a few situations, imo. Perhaps on a police officer they would be very good; if a criminal takes an officer's sidearm from him he would not be able to fire it due to whatever "smart" technology it has augmenting its...he's still got a weapon though, even if a high-tech club, but at least he cannot outrange the officer and greatly increase the chance for a fatality. Sure it's great that if only 1 man could shoot a specific firearm without fail - but there are faults in every technology, and if only 1 person can discharge each firearm, then a group of people who like to shoot would all need their own weapon(s), rather than being able to go to the range with their old Garand and each fire off a few clips.
There's my 10 cents (because 2 cents just isn't what it used to be <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
AK-47's are based on the 7.62 x 39mm Soviet round, developed in WW2.
AK-74's are based on the 5.45 x 39 mm Soviet round, developed in the years prior to the Soviet - Afghani war.
Beretta M9's use the 9 x 19mm Parabellum round. The same goes for many models of Glocks and USP's.
Those men were taken down by military issue M-16 and civilian AR-15 (basically the same weapon, but the AR-15 uses a 20 round semi automatic magazine and the M-16 uses a 20 or 30 round semi/burst magazine) based on the 5.56 x 45mm NATO round.
Just a few numbers for ya <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Perhaps you were thinking of the 7.92mm round of WW2 used in the German Mausers?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you realize that if it comes down to a gunfight, your dead already because even if you wound them, a gun is still deadly, whereas you wound them with a knive and then step away, while they write in pain on the ground they can't stab you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an <b>FBI</b> statistic: 92% of all knife encounters end up in a fatality. Nowhere <i>NEAR</i> that is the % of fatalities caused by firearm encounters.
Which would you rather go against at contact range? I'd take my chances with the gun.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me something.
Is there any purpose to a gun other than to injure, cripple, or kill other human beings (don't tell me you're going to go hunting with your Glock)?
Then why do we have to discuss their outlawing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The purpose of the gun is to equalize. The men of old with their Plate Armor and <insert medieval weapon here> dominated the battlefield. What turned this awesome tide? The firearm.
<b>The firearm is the great equalizer.</b> It makes skinny 5-foot-nothin average joe a match for joe linebacker who is 6'4" and 250 lbs. It has been a decisive factor in nearly every major battle for the last half a millennia. For better or for worse the Gun has changed history, and does require a huge moral and ethical responsibility on the wielder.
If a burgalar was in your home, and he drew a blade on you and was attacking, would you be such avid anti-firearm supporters? I think not. It's about survival at that point.
Murdering and Killing are two different ball games. Like I've stated before; you Murder for personal gain, you Kill to thwart personal loss.
If you take away all of the mass produced firearms in the world, will we stop killing each other? No. I can make a rudimentary firearm with the supplies and tools I have in my house alone - I don't need to buy a gun. Sure it won't work as well as a Kalashnikov but if you don't have one, then I win. Or say that I did not know how to make a firearm...I could still use explosive charges, hand grenades, or mines to kill people if I chose; it's truly quite simple to make such devices. The fact of the matter is that a rock is just as wicked of a weapon as a gun, or even my fist. It comes down to, <i>once again</i>, <u>Moral and Ethical Responsibility</u>.
Do I want to see people die? Hell no, I'm a very nice person, but I understand human nature unlike some of you. The only way Humans will stop hurting each other is if we are united for a common cause - in War no less.
The 'burglar in your house' scenario has been brought up multiple times already, and to be honest, I'm ready to guess that Thomas Paine, the man who created that metaphor, is spinning in the grave for every time it's used.
This example was created as a metaphor on the actions of the British government that precessed the American Revolution, just as the Amendment was created in a time when a second strike by the British didn't seem so unlikely. Just as some other things in your constitution (Are you twitching, Spooge? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ), it was a provisorium that should've been removed some centuries ago.
As for the 'it wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns' argument, again, having a family in the juristic sector, I can tell you you're <i>wrong</i>.
Most bankrobbers in Germany bluff and use water pistols or similiars because it's too difficult to get real arms.
[edit]Dez:
Those laws are all well and good, but a gun is by definition a potentially deadly weapon, correct? In that case, you can make up any kind of law you want, just as you might create a legislation that force cars to fly, it stays a <i>deadly weapon</i>. [/edit]
Also I do not need a lesson of my own country's history...and his last name was "Payne" if I recall <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The amendment still stands today. The Constitution of the United States is for the People, and no one else. Even if it gives the People <i>the right to bear arms</i> against their government, it is still their right.
Again, in a perfect world, I would say, "sure, everyone have a gun, give em out for free, becasue people will know when to use them", but this world doesn't exist. This moral and ethical responsibility a gunslinger has to have only few people know of. I agree, guns bring a responsibility, but I can't see the majority of the population handel that responsiblity.
The few who think like you are exactly that, few. Most people don't care about morals and ethics. Glad you do.
Also I do not need a lesson of my own country's history...and his last name was "Payne" if I recall <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but it's 10 pm, I'm tired, and angry because I made the mortal mistake of checking the news. I guess you'll have to wait till tomorrow.
It's sometimes written 'Payne', sometimes 'Paine', apparently because of an error in 'The Rights of the Man'. No idea which one is the right one, my 'Common Sense' says 'Paine', so I spell it like that.
BTW - I'm 19, I DO think guns are cool, I DO feel that they can be used for a home defense weapon, yet I DO have the MER (Moral and Ethical Responsibility - just to make it short hehe) to know when to use it and how to store it.
If the entire "Gun Control" argument is a matter of one man killing another - then we can all take a lesson from times past.
I'm sure you all have heard of the Samurai. They were the protectors of the Nobility, and often regarded as Nobility themselves in feudal Japan. They used to test the edge of their katana on an unarmed peasant...they also raped and took whatever they pleased from the peasants since the Samurai were equipped with at least two weapons, whereas the peasants had perhaps a rice-flail or a hoe (the tool!), if anything.
How did the peasantry combat this threat? The martial arts system of Karate (directly translated to "empty hand") was developed. The principle? <b>One strike, one kill</b>. Of course the emperor outlawed this practice once they learned that this mere unarmed peasant could combat and sometimes defeat their expensive, well armed and armored Samurai.
What's my point in this story you ask? That it is entirely up to the will of the human being whether or not to kill. A punch or kick can kill a man instantly...as can a firearm. Would you outlaw my appendages because I could kill you with them (I do train in martial arts btw) at a whim? No. The fact that I have these weapons on me at all times is testament to my personal level of MER.
Firearms are no different aside from the fact that they are used in a different manner, usually from a greater range than CQC (Close Quarter Combat - melee if you will).
I can argue up and down all day as to what a weapon is, but regardless it comes down to that same principle which I need not utter again...if you don't know what I speak of by now then you are truly hopeless and the argument is over.
Do not mistake this with support for gun control. I am totally against it. But, I see only one reason to own a gun, (as you are more likely to hurt your family with it than an intruder, and there's a good chance it will get stolen and sold in the inner cities) and that is for armed revolution. Of course, this really only works if you happen to be an advocate of said revolution, but that's another topic. That being said, I plan to leave this particular thread alone.
To quote Mike Mulvihill: "How does one say it without getting into trouble... Well, here goes- guns are cool ... really freakin' cool. Now, don't get me wrong: killing people is bad. Repeat-BAD! But seeing a gun in burst-fire mode spitting out casings (always in slow motion of course) is sooooo cool."
Guns have theoretical coolness about them that is somehow indescribable and not understandable like the fact that jumping out of planes with full tanks gives people an adrenaline rush, but I guess that's besides the point.
Back on topic: I agree that basicly everything on this planet can be used as a weapon. I could go around stabbing people with Barby dolls (they have real pointy feet and don't ask why I know that), but that doesn't meen that all weapons are equal. Based on your argument I could just as well say that everybody should have the right to own nuclear weapons or nerve gas at home, after all it only kills, just as my bare hands.
I think there needs to be a distinction made between the varying degrees of danger a weapon has. Fighting someone unarmed, hand to hand takes skill, strength and agility, so it isn't quite easy. Using melee weapons is easier, since you have the advantage of reach and a certain psychological advantage, but it still requires... well, skill although that sounds somehow wrong.
But even an 8 year old child can point a gun shoot you square in the head, killing you in one shot (although his arm would probably break of recoil, if handled incorrectly). Now, concerning nuclear weapons... even my 4 year old cousin could press a button.
The varying threat a weapon poses is therefore measured by a) the amount of skill required to use the weapon and b) the harm done by that weapon one would think.
Then there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where you draw that line is a matter of discussion, but... damn, now I am were I started. Regardless, you see what I'm aiming at...
Anyway, I think there should be bullet control. 5k a bullet, or outlawing bullets totally, that would work. Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
Of course you could go "Guns don't kill people, failures of the heart after the shock sustained from a bullet impact do."
Edit: By the way, guns are cool. I think (honestly) that guns are works of art. Not the killing aspect, just ... their craftsmanship and efficiency and design and everything. Don't ask. I wouldn't mind having an assault rifle even if I could only shoot blanks.
Falling doesn't hurt...it's just stopping so quickly that does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Opressors are usually those who are part of the government. Who's to say that twenty years down the road the US doesn't get overthrown by fascists? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, let's say twenty years down the road the US get overthrown by fascists. What do you think will happen? If you think that all the people will get out of their houses and will defeat those fascists, your certainly wrong.
At least 80% of the people will either be fascists/friends of them or won't care about it.
What do you think will happen to the remaining 20%?
10% of them will stay quite because they know they won't have a chance against the heavy armed fascists military.
The remaining 10% will <i>perhaps</i> try to use their guns to protect their freedom, but they'll just get murdered by the fascists.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All the educated Kurds in Iraq would disagree. So would all the Jewish doctors and lawyers in nazi germany(during that time). Guns merely are the means by which one can liberate themselves from oppression. Like Spooge implied, you can't fight an oppressor with a gun if you dont have one yourself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you really believe that the Kurds in Iraq could do ANYTHING against Saddams army, even if everyone of them, both man, woman and kids, had a assault-rifle? No.
The military would come with tanks, would eliminate one or two villages and their population and the little that would remain of "revolting" Kurds would be dead in no time.
Do you really believe that the Jews would have had any chance, even if everyone of them had a weapon? No.
Hitler would just have decided that's too difficult to deport them and would have ordered to blow up every jewish household. Maybe ten or twenty more soldiers of the Wehrmacht would get killed, maybe even 100, but it wouldn't really make a difference.
Now to the "burglar in my home" argument.
I'll generalize it a bit and say "criminal". Also not only in your home, but also on the streets.
If you encounter a criminal and you live in a country with strict gun control, one of this two things will happen:
1. The criminal has, like you, no weapon and will try to escape as soon as possible.
2. The criminal has, unlike you, a weapon and will force you to give him what he wants, then he'll escape.
some may say "or he'll kill you". Wrong. He knows that you have no weapon, so there wouldn't be a reason to shoot, even if he has a weapon.
If you encounter a criminal and you live, for example, in the USA, one of this three things will happen:
1. The criminal has, like you, a weapon and will immediatly shoot at you, knowing that you're a direct danger for him. You will be either badly injured or dead.
2. The criminal has, unlike you, no weapon but you don't know that. You'll shoot, believing in your danger, and badly injure or kill the burglar (without a reason).
I would rather loose all my goods than risking to be killed. Call me a chicken, but I can say for sure that I <i>would</i> cooperate with every armed criminal.
Now to the argument "Everything could be used as a weapon".
That's right, but not everyhing can kill 20 persons in 10 seconds.
Someone said that it wouldn't make a difference if you remove every firearm from this planet, we would still kill each other.
That's right, but it's a difference if you try to run amok with a blade or with a assault-rifle.
With a blade you can perhaps kill 3 people until you're overtake by someone who is stronger and faster than you.
With an assault-rifle, you can kill 300+ people untill the snipers arrives and kills you.
The same goes for "Guns don't kill people..." argument.
Sure, every gun needs someone who pulls the trigger, but 1. there are more than enough crazy people who <i>will</i> pull that trigger and 2. this <i>one</i> trigger-pulling might end in death for 10+ victims.
My friend (loosely said) believes that the only thing that turns the U.S. gov't from turning
into a tyranny is the threat of an armed revolution. that is *exrcement of a male bovine*.
Onuma, I agree that guns are cool but it ultimately comes down to M&E R.
Unfortunately look at american society. Few of us have morals. Few of us have ethics.
We are a gluttonous society of cravens.
And has anyone considered why the great empires of old were able to stay around for
hundreds of years while we see fledgling nations face insurrection after insurrection.
Guns are the great UN-equalizer. Back in the day *oh those medieval days*, the person
who was strongest usually rose to the highest position of power. The ascenscion of the
alpha male. He who fights the best becomes the one who leads. That meant that a small
5'5" 110lb peasant wouldn't be able to gather an army, for what could he offer? They
would instead gather around the (in rough terms) the strongest seed, the one who would
help those warriors spread. Look at the Huns. Attilla was not a giant of a man, but he
was a wicked fighter and brilliant leader. They controlled a swath of land larger then the
Third Reich. All of it conquered on horse back. Look at Alexander the Great. He
conquered Northern Africa, Greece, Persia (trans. Iraq and Iran and Saudia Arabia), the
western half of india and he managed to keep it relatively stable.
Now look at Napoleon. Because he had a gun, he could order people around, people who
probably wouldn't have listened to him otherwise. He conquered so much land but he
couldn't hold it because no one liked him, no one liked the way he led.
I'm sorry if I get a little emotional, I just read how...fanatic people are about their rights
to bear arms *and do remember that back in 1776 the fastest gun was about 2-5 rounds a
minute depending upon the shooter*. It's a load of *excrement of a male bovine*.
I live in vermont, and a while back a guy was killed (now the cows outnumber us 3-1)
because he was trying to enter a house. He was shot dead at the doorstep. All because he
was drunk and thought it was his house that he was trying to get into. He lived 1 house
down.
and like Messiah, the worst thing I plan on having in my house is some swords, more for
decoration then use. A Nodachi, a Katana, a Wakazashi and a Tanto.
There are countless professions in the United States that require the use of a firearm in the day to day rutine. Police,Coast Guard, National Guard, FBI, ATF, NET, CIA, NSA, and many more. THose orginizations employ hundreds of thousands of people, and statistically they have a much lower "incident" rate with their firearms than the general population. The primary reason for that is Education, they are all highly trained in the details and the CONSEQUENCES of discharging their firearms.
If you remember, the only way that america got a grip on the aids epidemic was through a rigerous educational cmapighn. The religious right (primarily responsible for the majority of our "STOP GUNS NOW" nonsense) were also opposed to teaching kids about sex at schools, but eventually everyone realized the merrit of those actions.
If we incorpirated the PROPER and SAFE and MORAL use of firearms into school educational programs we would eliminate the majority of our problems with guns.
So long as guns exist anywhere on the planet, they must be a part of our lives. For our protection, and the protection of the people in charge. If the people in charge know that the population cant be pushed around, they will be less tempted to do it.
OWNER: H&K USP 9 Benelli M3 Convertible
I couldn't agreed with you more. A gun is meant to be a deadly weapon. I understand this.
If my enemies are to have deadly weapons then I will have them too.
Besides, why would anyone wish to disarm me unless they had ill-intent?
I'm sorry but I still stand in defence of guns.
edit: didnt see posts before nemesis (slow aol loading web pages)
Ramses:
You are right. But it still comes under the subject of defence. You think I shouldn't be able to defend myself against those with guns? Why not? how could I ever defend myself against a person with a gun if do not have one myself? should I then make illegal bombs and other weapons that are unreliable to defend myself. Homemade weapons which have a very high potential of backfiring and going off when you do not want them to.
Say only ten percent fight for freedom. Are you to say this is not their basic human right.
"Of course they should be able to fight for freedom" one may say. "Just don't let them have guns." that makes alot of sense.
Why does our military carry guns? Why don't they just have knives? Because their enemies have guns. And those who would wish to rob/murder/rape me would have their own weapons capable of murder. So therefore I must equalize this power gap with my own.
Also it comes down to this. All sob stories and "Im not gunna risk my life for possesions".
Its a dog eat dog world out there. There are many criminals who would just kill you then let you go. I happens plenty. Yes, there are plenty of accidents where people shoot each other because they are being stupid or ignorant. But, seeing how the gun is the weapon of choice by many criminals we as a people must adapt or die.
Also, take this into consideration. Most criminals who are commiting a crime such a carjacking or armed robbery are extremely nervouse and VERY prone to doing something they did not intend like accidentally pulling the trigger in the height of ther adrenaline high from the act of doing something risky.
The presicion involved is something that attracts me. Take that how you want it, I don't shoot people of course. But shooting is very relaxing for me, I'd hate to loose it.