Gun Control...

[ProHypster]

Well a gun is a very good killing tool, other weapons of choice would be worse so in case there were no guns, I believe the country would not be safer as the same amount of people would attack other people but survivals of an attack would probably rise.

[Doom Shepherd]

I believe some SF author once wrote a book or story in which for some unexplainable reason, suddenly no weapon technology would work anymore: no bullets, bombs, tanks, etc.

 

So we went back to killing each other with swords and arrows, and there was a sharp uptick in mass-poisonings.

[Darthvoorhees]

My take on gun control is that if there is a gun around, I want to be the one controlling that.

 

Ok, all jokes aside, I think that civilians should be able to carry guns. Not be limited EXCEPT in certain circumstances.

 

Home Defense:

I honestly think if someone breaks into your home, they should be shot. They have no reason, no right, to be there without your permission. This is IN THE HOME, not on the property. But they always have to give the crook more rights than the victim. "Oh, you have to warn them."

 

Carry:

I think it should be allowed to openly carry (well, not in your hands, that's how accidents happen) weapons. But never have the pistol in hand unless your life is in danger and you NEED to use it.

Show that you're packing. Might make someone think twice. And some of the smart people may carry two weapons, one concealed, one open. The first to deter robbers, the second to protect your life if the first doesn't.

 

Rounds:

I'm not sure about this, there's not really a reason for civilians to carry hollow points or full metal jacket rounds (in fact, there's no reason to carry ARMOR piercing rounds). The Hollow Points could be used in home defense. Because honestly, it's the thief's own damn fault he got shot because he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.

 

Fully Automatic:

Anything full auto is to be kept at home, either for defense or as a collector. But the only use for full auto is when you want to scare someone away, but not kill them. But then, that's risky, your bullet can still hit an innocent bystander or cause damage to another person's property.

 

The only point Full auto ever had was suppressing fire, where you scare the enemy away or into cover by shooting rounds, and convenience. This could be used to convince any burglars carrying weapons to get the hell out of there. (Although, shotguns have the same advantage. Some cases all that needs to happen is the crook hearing the cocking noise and the crook partakes in rapid departure.)

 

The only way you're going to hit someone you're aiming for using full auto is shooting in controlled bursts. Since most people are too stupid to figure that out, the only people they hurt are bystanders, not their target.

 

If they would allow full auto guns to be owned by civilians, they'd do very well to make the people trying to get one to take a long class on how to use them properly. Along with background checks.

[Michael Archer]

Now what if not only victims, but also the criminals didn't have guns. Would that be safer? I am inclined to think that, because guns are used for shooting, the removal of all guns would mean less shooting and therefore less homicides. Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, because there'll always be some criminals that will get their hands on a gun, but in the imaginary case that guns didn't exist at all, would the world be safer?

 

I'm not very good with hypothetical, but I'll try:

 

I imagine baseball bats related robberies and murders would go up and that would lead to someone advocating the outlawing of baseball bats.

 

Actually, I see it now: people are going to complain about everything's potential to be a weapon.

[Darthvoorhees]

Actually, I see it now: people are going to complain about everything's potential to be a weapon.

 

Good point.

[Scorpia]

i haven't posted here until now, but i might as well state my stand: i'm neutral, gun control isn't a major concern for me. tbh i haven't put a fair amount of thought into it.

[JSF16]

Gun control? Yes to an extent. We can't just be giving any yahoo a firearm, they should display a very professional understanding of both the gun and the consequences of using said gun. They should need a license of course and should properly care for their guns, if you have kids in the house don't leave bullets and guns laying around, but keep them locked up securely and make sure your kids know about them.

 

I'm really not sure about automatic weapons, I mean, what do you need an automatic weapon for except for heavy-duty combat? Handguns are semi-auto's are OK in my book, shotguns too.

[Kirkreng]

Why the hell would you need a shotgun to for self protection? A low caliber handgun is understandable but a shotgun? To be honest an airsoft would do fine, the second anyone trespassing sees what he/she thinks is a functional gun they be on their way to the nearest getaway vehicle.

[Razor235]

Why the hell would you need a shotgun to for self protection? A low caliber handgun is understandable but a shotgun? To be honest an airsoft would do fine, the second anyone trespassing sees what he/she thinks is a functional gun they be on their way to the nearest getaway vehicle.

 

 

Pistols make them nervous. Shotguns scare the SHIT out of them.

[Doom Shepherd]

If you have a shotgun for home defense, chances are you will not even need to fire it.

 

There are few people whose brains do not send their legs the "RUN THE FVCK AWAY!" signal at the sound of a shotgun's pump action.

[Michael Archer]

Gun control? Yes to an extent.

 

The only extent on gun control I can think of is: any firearm that's sole purpose to murder (murder, not self-defense) other human beings should be banned. You have no right to own an RPG or an atomic bomb--the very fact of ownership of these weapons is a violation of other people's rights.

 

You defend yourself with a pistol, not with an RPG.

 

If you have a shotgun for home defense, chances are you will not even need to fire it.

 

There are few people whose brains do not send their legs the "RUN THE FVCK AWAY!" signal at the sound of a shotgun's pump action.

 

Also, shotguns are very effective hunting weapons, I'm told.

[BTGBullseye]

I figured I'd resurrect this thread since the laws that were banning pistol mags of over 10 rounds has lapsed since I started this, and since I just got a Ruger SR40c for concealed carry personal defense, (I don't have the CCW licence yet, so I only have an open carry holster at the moment) and put it through it's break-in of 200 rounds yesterday.

 

Anyone have anything new to say or argue about?

[Brad]

Here's my 2 cents on things: I don't think we need gun control. Guns are just an issue the media blows out of proportion to get ratings while the people are in hysterics. The politicians use these "issues" as a platform for their own careers, passing all sorts of arbitrary laws to give the impression that they are trying to solve the issue, when in reality they don't give a damn. If you want to curb the violent crimes, you need to look for the reason why everybody is killing each other, not what they are killing each other with. The U.S. has a lot of unresolved social and economic issues, but party politics and a crippled economy have divided the nation and made us blind. Mandatory training doesn't sound like a bad idea to me however.

[ThePest179]

Guns are just an issue the media blows out of proportion to get ratings while the people are in hysterics.

 

The media is a corrupt and lying snake that blows anything and everything out of proportion unless it's foreign news. It lies more than Big Brother's propaganda machine.

[BTGBullseye]

Mandatory training doesn't sound like a bad idea to me however.

I'd say that making it a mandatory class in both grade school and high school, with the latter culminating with the presentation of their own handgun when they get their diploma/GED, would be for the best.

[Vapymid]

Training is fine. In my time at school everyone was taught the basics of shooting and handling weapons (Makarov pistol, AK-47 and hand grenades) during civil defence lessons. But to present own gun?

 

Firstly, what if you can't afford gun, is it going to be issued to you by the State? As I understand, the most common interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it is for protection of people from abusive government. But if you rely on the government to give you the gun isn't there a moral contradiction?

 

Secondly and most importantly, you cannot give guns just to everyone. That is very simple. You need to get a licence to drive a car or to fly a plane or to operate heavy machinery, none of which is supposed to be lethal when used skillfully. To give guns, which are *meant* to be lethal in normal use, to everyone would be terminally stupid.

 

In fact, I would prohibit giving guns to anyone who displays signs of really, really wanting one (just like I would ban anyone who wants to make a career in politics from becoming a politician, but that's another story ).

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

If everyone has a gun, and someone goes postal, then we will have an easy time removing the postal person from the gene pool... If not, the person that goes postal gets to kill a lot of innocent people before removing him/herself from the gene pool.

 

And yes, issued a pistol from the government. 9mm preferably. Inexpensive though, maybe an SR9, or a P-95...

[Doom Shepherd]

I would prohibit giving guns to anyone who displays signs of really, really wanting one

 

So suppose a woman REALLY wants a gun because her ex-boyfriend wiped his ass with the restraining order, and the police aren't having any luck tracking him down?

[ThePest179]

I would prohibit giving guns to anyone who displays signs of really, really wanting one

 

So suppose a woman REALLY wants a gun because her ex-boyfriend wiped his ass with the restraining order, and the police aren't having any luck tracking him down?

 

I think he means obsessively wanting a gun.

[Vapymid]

So suppose a woman REALLY wants a gun because her ex-boyfriend wiped his ass with the restraining order, and the police aren't having any luck tracking him down?

 

Not a very good example. I could say, if her ex- suspects she might be armed *he* would definitely arm himself before going to her place, increasing the risk for everyone concerned.

 

On the other hand, if he already breached the order and is trying to see her, it must be a very lazy or dumb plod to not be able to figure out how to find the guy - just wait at the woman's place, FFS!

 

And if he has murder in mind she won't be able to stop him even with a gun, most likely. We had a case a couple of years back in England - the loonie just sneaked up to her house and shot through the window without warning...

 

If everyone has a gun, and someone goes postal, then we will have an easy time removing the postal person from the gene pool... If not, the person that goes postal gets to kill a lot of innocent people before removing him/herself from the gene pool.

 

The thing is, if a USPS employee or someone aspiring to be seen as one, would decide to go on a shooting spree he will kill a lot of people before he is stopped. Period.

 

Other people bearing guns would not react quickly enough and the postal guy always has a huge element of surprise on his side. With an automatic pistol he can kill 10 people easily before anyone even realises what's going on. And the fact that others are likely to carry guns will not act as a deterrent because these people just don't think of the consequences anyway.

 

The only way to minimise the chances of this happening is to prevent guns from getting into the loonies' hands in the first place.

 

I am not against responsible people owning arms but I want to see a high barrier to gun ownership and I definitely don't want to see people routinely carrying guns with them. There should be no reason to unless you live in a fourth-world country or in a wild outback somewhere...

 

Regards