Gun Control

[The Ozzman]

Guitars and plasma screens don't have the potential to create a massacre.

Fail. When I think massacre, I think assault rifles, not a fucking Colt .380 pistol.

 

[waif]

Any semi-automatic firearm has the potential to kill a large number of people very quickly. You may have noticed that most school shootings involve handguns.

 

[The Ozzman]

Depends on how accurate you are and how big the clip is tbh. Although, it also depends on how big of an area you are firing into as well.

 

[waif]

Okay, so guns aren't dangerous because you'd have to a good shot to kill anyone.

 

[Ben_t]

Why???

I don't understand this at all. If a mugger comes up to you and threatens you with a knife (which happens often), he or she is much more likely to fucking run if you pull a gun on them. Problem solved. Why the fuck shouldn't people carry a gun around to defend themselves? I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense to me.

Yeah everybody should carry guns at all times, that world would certainly be a safer place...

 

[The Ozzman]

Okay, so guns aren't dangerous because you'd have to a good shot to kill anyone.

Congrats on misinterpreting what I said

 

[waif]

Okay, explain to me how that post wasn't retarded and pointless.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm saying that a pistol with an 8 shot clip might not necessarily kill as many people as something like an AK-47 or an AR-15 with a bigger clip. I mean, if you're spraying bullets everywhere and not aiming carefully, then something like an AR-15 would be better since you have a higher percentage of doing damage with a bigger clip. A pistol is easier to wield and not as cumbersome as something like an AR-15, but depending on the ammunition you use, how well you aim, how much ammunition you have on you, etc, it might not be as lethal. The big drawback to a pistol is that you have to carry around more ammunition if you plan on killing a ton of people. It isn't the same case with something like an AR-15 or an assault rifle.

It's dependent on more variables than people think about normally.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What I think might be a good idea is if we had mandatory military training for everyone in the country of a certain age (note: I'm talking about training, not service). Not only could it instill some much-needed values into the general population (i.e. responsibility, discipline, self-sufficiency, initiative), but it would also be a way to make everyone competent at firearms use, which would be a huge deterrent to crime. Switzerland seems to do very well crime-wise considering that there are hundreds of thousands of assault rifles in the public's hands, and that virtually every male in the country knows how to shoot.

I think this would be a much better solution to our gun policy issue than to squabble over how regulated guns should be.

 

[The Ozzman]

Not necessarily military training, but just gun safety courses and how to properly maintain them.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

What I think might be a good idea is if we had mandatory military training for everyone in the country of a certain age (note: I'm talking about training, not service). Not only could it instill some much-needed values into the general population (i.e. responsibility, discipline, self-sufficiency, initiative), but it would also be a way to make everyone competent at firearms use, which would be a huge deterrent to crime. Switzerland seems to do very well crime-wise considering that there are hundreds of thousands of assault rifles in the public's hands, and that virtually every male in the country knows how to shoot.

I think this would be a much better solution to our gun policy issue than to squabble over how regulated guns should be.

i'm likin your idea

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not necessarily military training, but just gun safety courses and how to properly maintain them.

Yeah but military training has a lot more potential benefit for our country than just gun safety courses.

 

[skeptik]

I do not think that people should not be allowed to own guns. That would be absurd. But we should seriously reevaluate the way that we sell guns and who should be allowed to buy a gun.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd like to remind you of something a poster named S.U.A.D. once said. It went something like this (he was trying to argue for guns, too) "There have been situations I've been in where if I'd had a gun there would have been one dead motherfucker" or something. If you read Fist Stick Knife Gun by that dude who wrote it (can't remember) he describes carrying a gun around the Bronx for protection. He ultimately threw it away because he realized that if he kept carrying it eventually he'd use it.

He has a right to use it if someone takes his wallet.

In case you don't see what I'm saying, I'd rather have people getting their wallets stolen than people getting shot. Not just muggers, either. People do irrational stuff and while most people would be responsible, some guy might go flying off the handle and cap someone for cutting him off.

Well, I believe the opposite. People have the right to defend what's theirs. I think that in some instances we'll be presented with unfortunate deaths. In other situations people might be able to protect themselves. There are examples for both scenarios. At the heart of it though is personal liberty. If someone takes what's mine, I'll try to take it back. However, this does present the problem of the law intervening, which then might cause a rational person to resist using a firearm for fear of being charged. I don't always agree with the law; but that's the way it is.

Yeah everybody should carry guns at all times, that world would certainly be a safer place...

I don't want to make the world a safer place. I want people to have the right to fucking defend themselves and their personal property. There's nothing to be done about the gun situation now, so the best option is to leave the laws as they are. As I said, I can understand making more restrictions and the implementation of tests in order to purchase a handgun; but I don't agree with outlawing them completely.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Depends on how accurate you are and how big the clip is tbh. Although, it also depends on how big of an area you are firing into as well.

go fucking die plz

What nec said is the RIGHT answer, though

however none of the pro gun arguments i have heard by dumb gunzealots with hardons resembling pistols have convinced me of anything here

 

[Einherjar86]

go fucking die plz

What nec said is the RIGHT answer, though

however none of the pro gun arguments i have heard by dumb gunzealots with hardons resembling pistols have convinced me of anything here

Then why do you agree with Dodens, since he basically is pro-gun (from what I can discern of his post)?

 

[skeptik]

I am pro non stupid fucking people being able to own a gun if they can prove that they can handle it responsibly and that it won't fall into the wrong hands. I'm still in a grey area as to whether or not it's okay for people to talk around with guns in public places.

Also, I'm sorry Einherjar, but overall population safety outweighs individual rights when it comes to the responsibilities of the government. If something is so detrimental to public health that it outweighs the importance of individual liberty, then it is the government's responsibility to act upon that, including resorting to removing that particular liberty.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'd say it's far more important to err on the side of personal freedoms, but the thing is that in this case the freedom at stake is relatively trivial.

At any rate, the regulation of who can sell and buy guns should definitely take priority over which particular guns can be bought.

 

[skeptik]

Safety > freedom is the very principle of governance.

 

[The Ozzman]

go fucking die plz

I was being half serious through that entire exchange.

Safety > freedom is the very principle of governance.

In before someone quotes Ben Franklin