Gun Control

[rms]

isn't that what they use for Riot control?

 

[Einherjar86]

I think so. I believe that they hurt pretty fucking bad. And I know that head shots can still kill you.

 

[The Ozzman]

Don't they shoot beanbags at high velocity in riot control?

 

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

Sandbag gun \m/

 

[waif]

dont use em, never get laid

more likely.

I credit the lack of gun crime in Vermont to the fact that 3 people live there.

And that 3 is about to move out.
Seriously, it's one of 2 states in the Union that's losing people.

Real bullets won't kill someone if fired in the right place. Likewise, rubber bullets will kill someone if fired in the right place. But aside from that, I'd say that rubber bullets aren't a bad policy. Maybe people should be able to purchase real bullets, but if they're caught carrying real ones around in a firearm they can be penalized.

And yes, we have the right to shoot at people if they steal from us. Rubber bullets especially; shoot to stop, don't shoot to kill.

Someone comes up to you with a knife. You go for the gun you're carrying around.
Now, odds are you'll go for your gun and wind up dead because you aren't fucking James Bond. But let's say you pull it out. How many people are not going to shoot? Approximately none. And of those, how many are going to aim not to kill? Absolutely none. No fucking chance.
Ammunition for hunting rifles should be sold but non-lethal ammo for all other weapons. If you sell lethal ammunition to civilians there's not a chance they aren't going to use it.

Step back and take a breath. I'm assuming you've already read my post above. Now look at it from this perspective. I believe that handguns should remain legal and that the people who purchase them should be more than qualified to use one. I believe in regulation. What I don't believe in is total restriction of all handguns. I believe in some restrictions. I don't want every person to be able to purchase a gun, and I don't believe that every single person needs to have one. What I do believe is that people have the fucking right to own one. It's not my job to enforce public safety laws. I encourage people to handle their guns cautiously and wisely; but neither I nor the government has the right to ban handguns.

Where does this stop? Why shouldn't everyone have the right to own a tank and a nuclear warhead?
Why not?
Oh, I know, because that's a good way for a lot of people to die. It's a matter of public safety. Handguns exist for the sole purpose of harming other people. They are concealable, easy to use, and extremely lethal at close range. They are perfect for criminals and school shootings etc. Every year we hear about another kid who shot his friend by accident. If we're talking about home defense, shotguns would make more sense to me, since they accomplish the same thing but are harder to use for crime.

Anyhow, you avoided the part where you're advocating freedom to carry. I'm not gonna bother attacking that again because all the rational people on this board already dumped on that idea.

Furthermore, you all act like Krig keeping a gun next to his bed is moronic. It looks to me as though he knows how to handle the fucking thing, and it sounds from his experience that he's cautious with it; but you all gang up on him because he endorses public ownership of handguns. I believe that he's probably one of the most qualified on this forum to handle a fucking gun. So maybe all the rest of you should shut the hell up.

A lot of people who know how to handle guns have kids who don't.

Yes, he only said he had the right to, that doesn't say it's right just that it's legal.

You shouldn't have the right to, though. You're taking the law into your own hands. That's called vigilante justice and that's not cool.

It's actually not legal in some cases. A lot of lawyers jump on the opportunity to prosecute someone for shooting a thief. I don't agree with shooting to kill though. I agree with wounding/stopping. InFlames' rubber bullet argument would suffice here. I'm not really too knowledgable on how effective rubber bullets are, but I'm pretty sure they fucking hurt.

rubber bullets are actually illegal to use closer than 50 ft and are meant to be shot into the ground and bounce into legs - they're actually quite dangerous, really. Better would be something that shot capsules of mace or something.

@Ein: you seem to have a pathological objection to government interference. I'm all for civil liberties but the government exists to safeguard the welfare of it's citizens and part of welfare is not getting shot.

 

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

The government exists or should exist only to remove obstructions to flourishing of society, and to keep the rights of its citizens intact.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

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.

my father had a loaded pistol in his night stand that wasn't even in a holster yet, he also had a locked gun case with an assortment of rifles in it. if somebody breaks into your house you don't have time to find your keys, get the gun case key, unlock it, take out your gun, grab the ammo, unlock the gun, load it, blah, blah, blah. it was there for fast access in case he needed it not for storing. i also knew it was there (i lived with him from ages 9-13) but that didn't mean that i thought it was ok to take it and massacre people at school. the only people who do dumb shit like that are the fucking crazy idiots and if guns are made illegal, that won't stop them from massacring people... they'll just find something else to use

 

[waif]

@V:
rights to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I like to think of them as being in that order. Life comes first.
@viewer:
I was refering to how little kids keep killing each other by accident playing with guns that weren't stored out of reach.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

@viewer:
I was refering to how little kids keep killing each other by accident playing with guns that weren't stored out of reach.

once again, there's a huge difference between accidents and negligence

 

[waif]

um...
wtf are you talking about.
Negligent parents leave guns in places kids can find them. Kids find them, play with them, and accidentally kill each other.

 

[Einherjar86]

Someone comes up to you with a knife. You go for the gun you're carrying around.
Now, odds are you'll go for your gun and wind up dead because you aren't fucking James Bond. But let's say you pull it out. How many people are not going to shoot? Approximately none. And of those, how many are going to aim not to kill? Absolutely none. No fucking chance.

Do you have statistical proof for this? Because personally, I thihk that a lot of people wouldn't shoot to kill, and lots of people probably would even prefer not to use the firearm. Now, I think that if someone is audacious enough to carry a firearm, they probably will use it. However, I'd also like to think that they're qualified to do so (if my ideal policies are in place), and that means control. If a man with a knife sees a gun come out, he's running. That's all there is to it.

Where does this stop? Why shouldn't everyone have the right to own a tank and a nuclear warhead?
Why not?
Oh, I know, because that's a good way for a lot of people to die.

Knives are an easy way to kill people, and easy to conceal. You're argument isn't convincing me. Most handgun crimes are committed within close range.

And the line can be drawn at a reasonable place. The common criminal isn't in possession of tanks and nuclear warheads. The common criminal is in possession of firearms. So it's simple: allow citizens the right to purchase said firearms.

It's a matter of public safety. Handguns exist for the sole purpose of harming other people. They are concealable, easy to use, and extremely lethal at close range. They are perfect for criminals and school shootings etc.

Rifles are used just as commonly in school shootings. Outlawing handguns won't decrease the number of school shootings.

Every year we hear about another kid who shot his friend by accident. If we're talking about home defense, shotguns would make more sense to me, since they accomplish the same thing but are harder to use for crime.

Negligent parents are to be blamed.

Anyhow, you avoided the part where you're advocating freedom to carry. I'm not gonna bother attacking that again because all the rational people on this board already dumped on that idea.

I do advocate freedom to carry. I didn't realize that was an issue.

You shouldn't have the right to, though. You're taking the law into your own hands. That's called vigilante justice and that's not cool.

Who are you to say?

@Ein: you seem to have a pathological objection to government interference. I'm all for civil liberties but the government exists to safeguard the welfare of it's citizens and part of welfare is not getting shot.

The government is in place partially to preserve the rights of its citizens. People have the right to defend themselves. That's a right that I believe the government should protect. It has the duty to keep us safe as well, and part of that safety means allowing its citizens to bear arms (handguns included).

 

[skeptik]

There's a little thing called Excessive Force...I tend to feel that shooting a common burglar and mugger is excessive. I would be more comfortable if people carried tasers.

 

[Einherjar86]

The only problem I see is that a taser requires very close range. People would be less likely to be able to defend themselves.

Unless we're talking those taser-guns that shoot out and are connected to wires...

Still, I simply just believe that people should have the right to own a handgun. The law is already in place and active. People need permits to own and carry concealed handguns. If anything, I agree with making it slightly harder to obtain them. I don't think the level of violence in the country will change very much if we simply outlaw handguns among the public.

 

[waif]

Do you have statistical proof for this? Because personally, I thihk that a lot of people wouldn't shoot to kill, and lots of people probably would even prefer not to use the firearm. Now, I think that if someone is audacious enough to carry a firearm, they probably will use it. However, I'd also like to think that they're qualified to do so (if my ideal policies are in place), and that means control. If a man with a knife sees a gun come out, he's running. That's all there is to it.

No, I don't have statistics, this is just my knowledge of human nature.
Anyone paranoid enough to think he needs a handgun for protection would certainly shoot to kill. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
As for the guy with the knife, maybe. Or maybe he sees the dude suddenly reaching for something but he doesn't know what it is, so he just stabs him.

Knives are an easy way to kill people, and easy to conceal. You're argument isn't convincing me. Most handgun crimes are committed within close range.

If knives are as effective as guns then why are almost all school massacres committed with guns? Why do armies not have swords?
Oh, that's right, because guns are vastly more powerful and dangerous. A gunshot wound is much more lethal than a stabwound, a gun has range (there's close range and then there's arm's length. Knives work at arm's length only. "Close range" probably means 10 feet or so), etc.

Anyhow, knives shouldn't be banned because they have uses that aren't illegal.

And the line can be drawn at a reasonable place. The common criminal isn't in possession of tanks and nuclear warheads. The common criminal is in possession of firearms. So it's simple: allow citizens the right to purchase said firearms.

This simply doesn't make sense. "Let's give everyone an equal chance to kill each other, thus dramatically increasing the odds of violent confrontations."

Rifles are used just as commonly in school shootings. Outlawing handguns won't decrease the number of school shootings.

Do you have a statistic? Because I'm fairly certain that's bullshit.

Negligent parents are to be blamed.

Okay, yes. But something needs to be done.

I do advocate freedom to carry. I didn't realize that was an issue.

YES it's a fucking issue. Concealed carry is absolutely absurd, but even just plain carrying is alarming.

Who are you to say?

I'm civilization. Vigilante justice is illegal.

The government is in place partially to preserve the rights of its citizens. People have the right to defend themselves. That's a right that I believe the government should protect. It has the duty to keep us safe as well, and part of that safety means allowing its citizens to bear arms (handguns included).

Let us assume, hypothetically, that I could prove to you that allowing citizens to bear arms endangered them. Would it then be the government's responsibility to restrict firearms?

There's a little thing called Excessive Force...I tend to feel that shooting a common burglar and mugger is excessive. I would be more comfortable if people carried tasers.

Exactly.

The only problem I see is that a taser requires very close range. People would be less likely to be able to defend themselves.

Unless we're talking those taser-guns that shoot out and are connected to wires...

Still, I simply just believe that people should have the right to own a handgun. The law is already in place and active. People need permits to own and carry concealed handguns. If anything, I agree with making it slightly harder to obtain them. I don't think the level of violence in the country will change very much if we simply outlaw handguns among the public.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I don't have statistics, this is just my knowledge of human nature.
Anyone paranoid enough to think he needs a handgun for protection would certainly shoot to kill. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
As for the guy with the knife, maybe. Or maybe he sees the dude suddenly reaching for something but he doesn't know what it is, so he just stabs him.

This is an unfair assessment of the majority of firearm owners. All you're going off of are assumptions that really have no grounding in reality. Maybe some people would react the way you think, but there's no reason to assume that all people would.

Do you have a statistic? Because I'm fairly certain that's bullshit.

Handguns are still used frequently in school shootings. My point is that rifles/shotguns are used just as frequently. Search school shootings on Wikipedia. Lots of them were carried out using a combination of rifles and handguns. If the kids are taking the time to conceal a rifle, the handgun issue doesn't matter much.

YES it's a fucking issue. Concealed carry is absolutely absurd, but even just plain carrying is alarming.

I don't see why you think so. All you're doing is attacking the act itself, you're not saying why it's actually "absurd."

I'm civilization. Vigilante justice is illegal.

You're one tiny part of civilization.

Let us assume, hypothetically, that I could prove to you that allowing citizens to bear arms endangered them. Would it then be the government's responsibility to restrict firearms?

I already think that handguns put the population at a certain risk, definitely. However, I think that's a risk that human beings have the right to take. And in our current age, I think that we have no other choice but to take it. I think that in the current situation, outlawing handguns to the public won't help much to decrease the amount of violent crime. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to restrict firearms completely. I think they need to limit the access and keep a close watch on how citizens obtain them.

 

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

WAIF you're not really saying anything tbh.

 

[Dak]

#1. Way more people die from properly prescribed pharma-ceuticals than accidental shootings every year. Why isn't anyone clamouring for Merck to be shut down? Accidents happen of all sorts all over the place, to grab something like accidental gun deaths which has a very low number when compared to a lot of other causes.
As far as kids getting there parents gun and killing themselves or others accidently that is just poor parenting. I knew where my dads gun was from like age 5. It was loaded in a holster under his mattress. I could have gone and gotten it anytime I wanted. But I never even CONSIDERED it. I knew what it was and what it could do.
#2. To make laws to keep law-abiders from doing something is completely pointless. If someone wants to kill someone bad enough they will either A. Find a way to do it without a gun, or B. Get a gun anyway. Drugs are outlawed in the US, and look how effective that has been......
#3. It's really no ones business WHY I would want a gun. I am stationed in Arizona right now and fortunately being military I don't have to deal with any bullshit when I want a gun. Just need cash and my military ID. Is that too easy? Could someone who I would think shouldn't have a gun get one? Probably. But I have my own for that reason. I am MUCH more scared by the TERRIBLE drivers all over this country and you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get a license and people still can't drive.
Would I ever be mugged? who knows. Would I shoot to kill? Hell yeah. If someone broke in my house in the middle of the night would I shoot to kill? Hell yeah. In either situation you don't know whether the guy has a gun or not. I won't take that chance.He made the decision to try and ruin my day, so I will make sure I ruin his. That is NOT vigilante justice. Vigilante justice would be me coming home to find my house burglarized and I try and track down the guy. If I am home though my life/personal health IS threatened, therefore it is Self Defense.

 

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

Hey, you made a pretty much rational and decently worded post without complete stupidity...cool.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Although I believe self-defense may be worded differently from state to state, I'm pretty sure a lot of the statutes on it say you have to reasonably believe you have no option other than violence for it to count as self-defense.

Of course, courts often err on the side of the one who was initially being threatened. But legally speaking (or ethically), you shouldn't assume that you can just shoot whomever comes into your house in the middle of the night.

 

[chuj666]

and some people buy guns to act TOUGH.......

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0RZ11kcLno&feature=related[/ame]