Gun Control

[skeptik]

Every ounce of governance is a hindrance upon personal freedoms you stupid fuck.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Safety > freedom is the very principle of governance.

Well yeah, I was just saying that it's better to err on the side of freedom when in doubt, because it's a lot easier to give freedoms up than it is to get them back.

 

[The Ozzman]

Every ounce of governance is a hindrance upon personal freedoms you stupid fuck.

Eat a bag of shit

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

You don't have to apologize, you're one of the people on here whose opinion I usually find sound even if it is the exact opposite of what I agree with. I just feel that in the current situation, trying to limit citizens' possession/purchase of handguns would be more detrimental than letting people own as they will (provided they pass all the proper tests and fill out all the legal documents-as you said: "non stupid fucking people being able to own a gun if they can prove that they can handle it responsibly").

And I will always be very adamant about individual rights. That's just how I am. I see any form of government infringement as potentially dangerous to all individual liberties, no matter who they're acting on behalf of. That said, I still feel that government is necessary; but I like small government.

 

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

I see any form of government infringement as potentially dangerous to all individual liberties, no matter who they're acting on behalf of.

No, just no. Very, very slippery slope to argue. You could say that LOTS of kinds of government infringement are potentially dangerous to civil and other liberties but not ALL.

 

[Matt]

Okay, I'll just use my computer monitor then

el oh el

Since there is no way in hell the rednecks will allow a total overhaul the current system, this is what I see as acceptable.

Rifles for hunting (extensive licensing and shit)
Small handguns (note: for home use only. It should be illegal to take it out with you)

 

[Einherjar86]

No, just no. Very, very slippery slope to argue. You could say that LOTS of kinds of government infringement are potentially dangerous to civil and other liberties but not ALL.

Gods, lay off. It's what I said "I believe." I'm not arguing anything. Furthermore, I said I approve of small government. By "any" I meant any more than they already do.

 

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

OK.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Will always be outnumbered on this issue; but whatever. Guns give me the ability to defend not only myself, but others. If we lived a world of swords, I would carry a sword, but this is simply not the case.

Guns are comparatively safe considering one must load the cartridges, insert the magazine, release the safety, pull the charge handle, aim, fire, actually hit something, and that something must be a person. This cannot happen by accident, only by negligence, which happens all the time with countless other items you never hear about because they are not part of the anti-gun agenda.

In the case of crime, well it seems we either disarm everyone or arm most. Both are pretty impossible, so I stand on the side of individual rights. We do not live in a perfect world. People will die; always. I would rather defend those I can than cross my fingers and try to make the world nonviolent.

good post.
protection for my life and for my property.
because its damn fun to shoot.
right next to the bed, loaded and in the holster.

 

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

If only all people were rational with guns.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

now all I need is a 12 guage shotgun

and some hollowpoints.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Krig, what's the thing by your clock on the nightstand?

 

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

he accidentally the whole flashlight

 

[waif]

Some stuff about guns

8 dead is a massacre you stupid fuck

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'd support this. I'd even be okay with 2 years mandatory military service after high school as long as it's not deployment; i.e. 2 years domestic military service rather than being shot in Iraq.

We should seriously reevaluate the way that we sell guns and who should be allowed to buy a gun.

Captain Obvious to the rescue.

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

Does he? I mean, let's think about this. Is theft or assault punishable by death?

How about this: citizens can't buy real bullets, only rubber bullets or even some even more lameass form that won't kill dudes but it'll remove their desire to take your wallet.

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.

you missed the part where someone gets cut off and shoots someone. People walking around with power over life and death in their pocket is not a good situation, since in case you haven't noticed most people are impulsive, selfish, irrational morons.

I don't want to make the world a safer place.

Then fuck you. If you don't give a shit about public safety, just individual safety, then I'm not interested in your opinion on this because whatever it is I'm going to disagree with it completely.

Rifles for hunting (extensive licensing and shit)
Small handguns (note: for home use only. It should be illegal to take it out with you)

I'd say shotguns instead of small handguns, because shotguns are actually less dangerous; not concealable, harder for kids to accidentally kill each other with, harder to take to school, etc.

good post.
protection for my life and for my property.
because its damn fun to shoot.
right next to the bed, loaded and in the holster.

Do you not plan on having kids?
Because if you have a loaded gun in an easy to reach place like that and kids in the house you deserve to be fucking shot.

 

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

it's krig do you expect him to have kids

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

@ WAIF

What does that even mean? Im single with my own house. I dont see any kids...
and yes, I do want kids.

 

[waif]

Point is that people not locking their fucking guns up is a problem. If you have kids, remember to not leave that shit loaded and put it somewhere way out of reach. Although my personal prediction is that you will never know the touch of a woman.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

he accidentally the whole flashlight

That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure. I was going to say, if you really want to be able to defend your home from an intruder you kinda need some light.

I'd support this. I'd even be okay with 2 years mandatory military service after high school as long as it's not deployment; i.e. 2 years domestic military service rather than being shot in Iraq.

Yeah, that would be excellent. I really think a policy along these lines would make our country a much better place.

How about this: citizens can't buy real bullets, only rubber bullets or even some even more lameass form that won't kill dudes but it'll remove their desire to take your wallet.

Yeah, this was actually brought up in the last major gun control thread we had. There's seriously no good reason why people should be using guns to defend themselves instead of things like tasers or rubber bullets.

 

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

No, mandatory military is fucking gay, screw you guys.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, mandatory military is fucking gay, screw you guys.

Great argument there. That took all of, what, 0.1 seconds of thought?