Guns <Serious Answers Only>

Anything else you'd like to talk about? Post here.
>> How Do You Feel Right Now
Post Reply

Guns, what about them?

Down with them
62
84%
Up with guns
12
16%
 
Total votes: 74

ChaosControl
Posts: 2282
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:55 am
NNID: jammydodger1985
3DS Friend Code: 270729914659
PSN ID: jammydodger1985
Steam ID: jammydodger1985

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by ChaosControl » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:04 am

row101 wrote: How many times do I need to repeat that 736,000 Americans live in Alaska with gooseberry fool Polar Bears? Ha, good luck taking guns away from the Alaskans, 58% of people own a gun there.
No one is taking away guns!!! They're just making things safer for everyone! Why risk endangering peoples lives just so people can enjoy a hobby/ pretend they're John McClain?
I like to knit and crochet as my hobby, but you don't see me complaining that I can't take needles and hooks onto public transportation.
Aside from that, I've said before that self-defense is a better argument in the US than in the UK. I'm not talking about terrorism, I'm talking about the times where your house is being robbed, maybe in the middle of the night, and the only thing you can do to stop it is to scare them away. Not shoot them, but use your gun responsibly to make them get the gooseberry fool out of your house.
Charging at the burglar while naked is also effective.
Also while we're on the subject of midnight intruders.... Seriously, how often does this even happen?? Apart from films and TV shows....
Burglars prefer to target empty houses, much less chance of getting caught.
More guns does not mean that we'll turn into the US -- in America that's more of a societal problem and a problem with mental health than it is a problem caused by guns.
Um, actually... Our mental health and social care is also pretty bad in a lot of areas in this country. Plus various gangs. Yes, criminals tend to acquire guns illegally... Usually by stealing someone else's gun that they bought legally. Or from a black market seller. Either way, if you lessen the restrictions on buying guns legally, it's only going to make it that much easier to get hold of a gun illegally.
I am functioning within the established parameters.

User avatar
row101
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:11 pm
NNID: row101
3DS Friend Code: Hello world.
PSN ID: Why are you reading?
Xbox Gamertag: Why am I typing?
Steam ID: Why are we alive?

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by row101 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:58 am

*sigh*
Cribs wrote:holy eton mess this thread has tilted me hard


You keep going on about Alaska and polar bears which I don't really get, if it really is that bad in Alaska then 1. why do people even live there,
Oh, I don't know, because it's their home? They have the right to live wherever they want and they have to right to defend themselves like any other American. Are you seriously suggesting that we forcefully take away their guns and forcefully move them to the continental US?
Cribs wrote:2. Aren't polar bears endangered and therefore protected
Polar Bears were an example, there are plenty of dangerous animals in Alaska and other similar places. Taking away the guns they use to defend themselves with is akin to murder. Ideally guns shouldn't be used to kill people, they should be used to restore order. But wild animals are a whole different game.
Cribs wrote:and 3. How does this even affect your point, people are asking for much stricter measures like they are here in the UK, I'm sure if there is reasonable danger in gooseberry fool Alaska then they will be allowed their guns but people in New Orleans for example are in a completely different scenario.
I agree, which is why different states have different gun laws - heavily republican States like Texas allow for open carry, which I personally disagree with, while liberal states like California have far stricter gun laws. The right to own a gun is universal though, for various reasons I've stated throughout this discussion.
Cribs wrote:Also I don't really buy your only other valid reason for owning guns which is for enjoyment. I can't believe that no-one has mentioned this but there are plenty of ranges in the U.K who own their own guns, there is literally no need to own your own gun in order to enjoy shooting one.
For a casual person who does it for recreation, maybe, but for somebody who partakes in it as a hobby, people should be able to own their gun, customise it and use it. I'd much rather have my own gun than have to use whatever crappy one gets provided to me at the range, and I've already given other reasons like collecting as justification for being able to keep them.
Cribs wrote:
row101 wrote: There's far more of a gun culture in America. Imagine some rural run-down village in Texas. Now imagine that somehow, for some reason, the government thinks it's a good idea to take away all the guns. Theoretically, all the guns have gone. But maybe there's one gun left, one guy who still has it. That guy pretty much has control of the town, he can go round and threaten people as much as he likes because the government took the rest of the guns away, and being rural Texas the police are pretty useless and there's not much that can be done about it. It's a fundamental imbalance - guns go from something that anyone can have to defend themselves with to something that only a select few criminals have, illegally. Those criminals then have an advantage over the unarmed population.
I'll also add that this was incredibly dumb too, why do you believe that the police would be "pretty useless" in this matter
That wasn't my best argument, but I meant was that the police can't always stop gun crime. If I live in a farmhouse far away from a Sheriff's office, I want to be able to protect my family. When you take away guns from the citizens, criminals won't be afraid to obtain them illegally, and that just causes a fundamental imbalance between the citizens and the criminals - the criminals having the higher ground, and the citizens have very little to defend themselves with. That is what the police in certain areas will struggle to deal with, both in places like where I mentioned and bad neighbourhoods in places like Detroit, where there are plenty of people not afraid to use illegal weapons. The citizens need something to defend themselves from these people, and the police can't do it alone.
Bleachyleachy wrote:Going to chime in on the guns for 'self-defence' argument
Authors name slips my mind, but they put it brilliantly once:
"Birth control can be achieved by wearing a condom or punching your balls until they're a bloody pulp. The difference is one is defensive, the other is offensive"

A tool designed specifically for terminating life is an offensive measure
A burglar alarm is a defensive measure
A sturdy door with a heavy duty lock is a defensive measure
A bright torch (enough to startle a midnight intruder if shone into the eyes) is a defensive measure

Or in the worst case scenario, putting your hands up when someone has a knife to your throat or a gun to your temple and deciding that your wallet is worth less than your life, you get the idea

I've seriously never bought the argument that guns for self-defence are legitimate, and while I can't prove it, I suspect a lot of Americans are dishonest when they say so too
Guns and shooting are fun. That is why I would want to own a gun. I'm sure I speak on the behalf of many Americans when I say this. But I would never try to justify ownership of firearms with some flimsy action hero belief that when my house is broken into I will turn into a hero capable of putting a bullet between a dude's brain
You would rather put your hands up and surrender than be able to defend yourself with a weapon? Yes, there are other defensive measures, but there are times when a gun is necessary to defend yourself. I know you haven't experienced it yourself, but people find themselves in situations where it's either be shot by a criminal, or shoot the criminal. It's a very difficult thing to do, but it's necessary. In fact, my sister's house was broken into a few days ago. She didn't have a weapon of self-defence. She couldn't do anything about it other than try to find him. If she had a gun, she now has the upper ground, and can find the criminal and restore order, ideally bringing him to justice in a responsible manner, but there are occasions where it is necessary to use a weapon to kill someone. I high recommend reading through this Reddit thread, because in most of these cases legal guns save more lives than they kill.
ChaosControl wrote:
row101 wrote: How many times do I need to repeat that 736,000 Americans live in Alaska with gooseberry fool Polar Bears? Ha, good luck taking guns away from the Alaskans, 58% of people own a gun there.
No one is taking away guns!!! They're just making things safer for everyone! Why risk endangering peoples lives just so people can enjoy a hobby/ pretend they're John McClain?
I like to knit and crochet as my hobby, but you don't see me complaining that I can't take needles and hooks onto public transportation.
No, Obama isn't going too far, he's not taking away guns, but others in this thread are suggesting that we take away the guns that many people in places like that need to survive.
ChaosControl wrote:
Aside from that, I've said before that self-defense is a better argument in the US than in the UK. I'm not talking about terrorism, I'm talking about the times where your house is being robbed, maybe in the middle of the night, and the only thing you can do to stop it is to scare them away. Not shoot them, but use your gun responsibly to make them get the gooseberry fool out of your house.
Charging at the burglar while naked is also effective.
Also while we're on the subject of midnight intruders.... Seriously, how often does this even happen?? Apart from films and TV shows....
Burglars prefer to target empty houses, much less chance of getting caught.
More often than you think, as I said before, there are numerous examples of people having to make the difficult decision to kill a criminal for the greater good.
ChaosControl wrote:
More guns does not mean that we'll turn into the US -- in America that's more of a societal problem and a problem with mental health than it is a problem caused by guns.
Um, actually... Our mental health and social care is also pretty bad in a lot of areas in this country. Plus various gangs. Yes, criminals tend to acquire guns illegally... Usually by stealing someone else's gun that they bought legally. Or from a black market seller. Either way, if you lessen the restrictions on buying guns legally, it's only going to make it that much easier to get hold of a gun illegally.
We don't have as many crazy Republican Christians though, as far as I'm aware. And with tighter restrictions, the civilian population is defenceless against criminals, relying only on the police, who more often than not arrive when it's too late. Instead of taking away the liberties of gun owners, we should by trying to take down the black market and prevent thefts. There's no perfect solution to gun crime, but I'd argue that the best path is the path that restores the liberties of the silent majority who support guns.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - George Washington

User avatar
Kesskuron
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:05 pm
NNID: Kesskuron
3DS Friend Code: 167643044135
PSN ID: Kesskuras
Steam ID: Kesskuron

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Kesskuron » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:49 pm

row101 wrote:Polar Bears were an example, there are plenty of dangerous animals in Alaska and other similar places. Taking away the guns they use to defend themselves with is akin to murder. Ideally guns shouldn't be used to kill people, they should be used to restore order. But wild animals are a whole different game.
It's not even close
Image

User avatar
row101
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:11 pm
NNID: row101
3DS Friend Code: Hello world.
PSN ID: Why are you reading?
Xbox Gamertag: Why am I typing?
Steam ID: Why are we alive?

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by row101 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:02 pm

Kesskuron wrote:
row101 wrote:Polar Bears were an example, there are plenty of dangerous animals in Alaska and other similar places. Taking away the guns they use to defend themselves with is akin to murder. Ideally guns shouldn't be used to kill people, they should be used to restore order. But wild animals are a whole different game.
It's not even close
I was exaggerating, but you can't just take guns away from people who rely on them like some people here are suggesting.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - George Washington

User avatar
Aren142
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:01 pm
Steam ID: Aren142
Contact:

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Aren142 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:05 pm

row, you're being about as intelligent as Ghost. Stop. You saw what happened.
<Kaeetayel> Go for a team entirely composed of Eeveelutions
<Princess> that's effort
<Princess> I need to buy the stones/go to rocks/make them happy/touch Eevee
<Kaeetayel> The last one doesn't sound too bad

User avatar
Cribs
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:04 pm
Steam ID: Cribster18

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Cribs » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:14 pm

row101 wrote:*sigh*
Cribs wrote:holy eton mess this thread has tilted me hard


You keep going on about Alaska and polar bears which I don't really get, if it really is that bad in Alaska then 1. why do people even live there,
Oh, I don't know, because it's their home? They have the right to live wherever they want and they have to right to defend themselves like any other American. Are you seriously suggesting that we forcefully take away their guns and forcefully move them to the continental US?
I mean I have the right to live at the bottom of the ocean but I should take responsibility for the dangers of drowning, settling somewhere with such a heavy threat is on YOUR head, nobody elses. Also you've just strawmanned really hard I literally say in the next line that I've never suggested that they lose their guns, I do actually believe that some Americans need them to survive/hunt.
row101 wrote:
Cribs wrote:2. Aren't polar bears endangered and therefore protected
Polar Bears were an example, there are plenty of dangerous animals in Alaska and other similar places. Taking away the guns they use to defend themselves with is akin to murder. Ideally guns shouldn't be used to kill people, they should be used to restore order. But wild animals are a whole different game.
This bolded bit is just to remind you that you are promoting civilian warfare and vigilantism, which honestly is almost as dumb as the fact that you think restricting gun usage in states with "dangerous animals" is the same as murdering people.

row101 wrote:
Cribs wrote:Also I don't really buy your only other valid reason for owning guns which is for enjoyment. I can't believe that no-one has mentioned this but there are plenty of ranges in the U.K who own their own guns, there is literally no need to own your own gun in order to enjoy shooting one.
For a casual person who does it for recreation, maybe, but for somebody who partakes in it as a hobby, people should be able to own their gun, customise it and use it. I'd much rather have my own gun than have to use whatever crappy one gets provided to me at the range, and I've already given other reasons like collecting as justification for being able to keep them.
And if they really want to do that, which I can see happening in very few people, then they can easily go through the proper channels. I'm not really sure why you think there are so many people out there clamouring so much to own their own rifle when I'm sure the majority are just curious and would be happy enough with a go on a shooting range once a month. Others have also pointed out that you can literally collect anything and therefore you really can't use that as justification. I collect severed human heads for example does that mean murder should be legalised? Stop being ignorant.
row101 wrote:That wasn't my best argument, but I meant was that the police can't always stop gun crime. If I live in a farmhouse far away from a Sheriff's office, I want to be able to protect my family. When you take away guns from the citizens, criminals won't be afraid to obtain them illegally, and that just causes a fundamental imbalance between the citizens and the criminals - the criminals having the higher ground, and the citizens have very little to defend themselves with. That is what the police in certain areas will struggle to deal with, both in places like where I mentioned and bad neighbourhoods in places like Detroit, where there are plenty of people not afraid to use illegal weapons. The citizens need something to defend themselves from these people, and the police can't do it alone.
Fair enough in some scenarios, but I think that this is something which would be rectified should stricter laws come into place, hiring more officers and/or permitting gun ownership on the grounds of self defence in extreme circumstances could easily happen.
Last edited by Cribs on Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OrangeRakoon
Posts: 5780
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:08 pm
NNID: OrangeRakoon
3DS Friend Code: 0705-5259-5082
PSN ID: OrangeRakoon
Steam ID: OrangeRakoon
Contact:

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by OrangeRakoon » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:14 pm

row, out of interest, what "level" of weapon is your cutoff point where you think regular people /don't/ have a right to own them? For example, should people be allowed automatic weapons? What about a minigun? An RPG? A tank? An attack helicopter?

Once that is established, why do you place the arbitrary cutoff point as there, and how do you reconcile that with how it infringes upon personal freedoms?

User avatar
Rik
Posts: 3696
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:12 pm
NNID: RikTheNinja
3DS Friend Code: 1032-1749-4002

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Rik » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:20 pm

The self defence argument you keep coming back to strikes me as pretty weak, why can't something like a taser or pepper spray suffice? On top of that, if guns were easier to get ahold of, it'd just mean that small time criminals who wouldn't normally have access to the black market or whatever would have an easier time of arming themselves, meaning ordinary people would be at more of a risk.
I know you haven't experienced it yourself, but people find themselves in situations where it's either be shot by a criminal, or shoot the criminal.
How do you know he hasn't
row101 wrote:*sigh*
Just what exactly are you sighing at here? That people disagree with you? That we're all obviously so ignorant of how oppressed we are? It comes across and dumb and condescending and it isn't helping your argument at all.
row101 wrote:Nah, I'm gooseberry fool tired of desperately trying to push back the circlejerk.
Same thing here, where's the circlejerk?
row101 wrote:
Kesskuron wrote:
row101 wrote:Polar Bears were an example, there are plenty of dangerous animals in Alaska and other similar places. Taking away the guns they use to defend themselves with is akin to murder. Ideally guns shouldn't be used to kill people, they should be used to restore order. But wild animals are a whole different game.
It's not even close
I was exaggerating, but you can't just take guns away from people who rely on them like some people here are suggesting.
Literally nobody has suggested that
Hell, most people have acknowledged that that would be dumb and wouldn't work
row101 wrote:silent majority
Source pls
Ghost wrote:and since when has "being dumb" been a sin on the internet?
Pokeforum Random Battle Tourney - come for the battles, stay for the salt

User avatar
abx
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:02 pm
NNID: abraxian
3DS Friend Code: 888888888888
PSN ID: abx_will
Xbox Gamertag: abxwill

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by abx » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:26 pm

row101, why can't I own weaponised anthrax?
Image
Image
high off the second-hand fumes

User avatar
JenovaPX
Posts: 6386
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:58 pm
PSN ID: JenovaPX
Steam ID: Jenova1039

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by JenovaPX » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:36 pm

Rik wrote:
row101 wrote:silent majority
Source pls
I asked earlier, I assume it's coming still, just be patient. I mean he wouldn't be talking out of his angel delight now would he?
Welcome to the True Man's World
Destiny is Destiny.

User avatar
Rik
Posts: 3696
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:12 pm
NNID: RikTheNinja
3DS Friend Code: 1032-1749-4002

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Rik » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:44 pm

I mean the closest thing I could find was a Telegraph poll where a repeal of the handgun ban was the most popular choice for a Private Member's Bill to be introduced, but there again it was running against things such as "ban spitting" and "greening public spaces" so it's probably to be taken with a pinch of salt. Term limits on PMs and a "flat tax" (completely ambiguous as to what that entailed) were more serious options but they're still things people would look at and go "eh", as opposed to the handgun ban where people who are passionate about the subject would immediately jump on. Add to that the fact that there's no anti-gun option (other than voting for one of the other lacklustre options) and really it's a very distorted poll.
Given that's the best I could find I'm finding it hard to believe that the "silent majority" exists, tbh.
Ghost wrote:and since when has "being dumb" been a sin on the internet?
Pokeforum Random Battle Tourney - come for the battles, stay for the salt

User avatar
IronHide
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:57 pm
Steam ID: IronHide1981

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by IronHide » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:48 pm

Cribs wrote: You keep going on about Alaska and polar bears which I don't really get, if it really is that bad in Alaska then 1. why do people even live there, 2. Aren't polar bears endangered and therefore protected and 3. How does this even affect your point, people are asking for much stricter measures like they are here in the UK, I'm sure if there is reasonable danger in gooseberry fool Alaska then they will be allowed their guns but people in New Orleans for example are in a completely different scenario.
One word: Alligators

Seriously though, it's not just Alaska where dangerous animals live near to humans and in such places the 'self defence' argument is fairly valid, just not against armed criminals.

In Alaska however, there are Bear patrols which trap and relocate bears that become a nuisance/danger to people.

User avatar
Cribs
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:04 pm
Steam ID: Cribster18

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Cribs » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:18 pm

Thankyou but I've already replied to this

User avatar
row101
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:11 pm
NNID: row101
3DS Friend Code: Hello world.
PSN ID: Why are you reading?
Xbox Gamertag: Why am I typing?
Steam ID: Why are we alive?

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by row101 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:03 pm

Cribs wrote:
row101 wrote:
Cribs wrote:2. Aren't polar bears endangered and therefore protected
Polar Bears were an example, there are plenty of dangerous animals in Alaska and other similar places. Taking away the guns they use to defend themselves with is akin to murder. Ideally guns shouldn't be used to kill people, they should be used to restore order. But wild animals are a whole different game.
This bolded bit is just to remind you that you are promoting civilian warfare and vigilantism, which honestly is almost as dumb as the fact that you think restricting gun usage in states with "dangerous animals" is the same as murdering people.
What I meant by restore order was to resolve the situation responsibly and non-violently by threatening the other person with a gun, not by shooting them. I'd suggest that even if you didn't have a gun, a knife works just as well as a self-defense tool to threaten people away if there's an immediate threat to your life.
Cribs wrote:
row101 wrote:
Cribs wrote:Also I don't really buy your only other valid reason for owning guns which is for enjoyment. I can't believe that no-one has mentioned this but there are plenty of ranges in the U.K who own their own guns, there is literally no need to own your own gun in order to enjoy shooting one.
For a casual person who does it for recreation, maybe, but for somebody who partakes in it as a hobby, people should be able to own their gun, customise it and use it. I'd much rather have my own gun than have to use whatever crappy one gets provided to me at the range, and I've already given other reasons like collecting as justification for being able to keep them.
And if they really want to do that, which I can see happening in very few people, then they can easily go through the proper channels. I'm not really sure why you think there are so many people out there clamouring so much to own their own rifle when I'm sure the majority are just curious and would be happy enough with a go on a shooting range once a month. Others have also pointed out that you can literally collect anything and therefore you really can't use that as justification. I collect severed human heads for example does that mean murder should be legalised? Stop being ignorant.
It's not very easy at all in the UK to get one for recreational usage. Took a while to find out what usage they allow but here: "a person whose only reason for possessing a rifle or muzzle loading pistol is for target shooting must be a member of a target shooting club approved by the Home Office or the Scottish Government Safer Communities Directorate." (source, pg. 112). More ridiculous unnecessary red tape in our gun laws, I should just be able to shoot in my garden for fun if I want to. There's probably far more red tape that most people don't know about that continues to make it a nightmare to obtain a gun for recreational use in the UK. That was just the first example of ridiculous regulations I could find. I should be able to buy a gun if I have a valid reason and nothing out of order on my background checks, period.

That document has 258 pages of laws. The constitution manages to do it in one sentence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, no, you can't get a gun easily through the proper channels.

As for collecting, gun collecting is definitely a valid hobby. It's mostly people who love machinery and love guns, not people who love killing people and decapitating them.
Cribs wrote:
row101 wrote:That wasn't my best argument, but I meant was that the police can't always stop gun crime. If I live in a farmhouse far away from a Sheriff's office, I want to be able to protect my family. When you take away guns from the citizens, criminals won't be afraid to obtain them illegally, and that just causes a fundamental imbalance between the citizens and the criminals - the criminals having the higher ground, and the citizens have very little to defend themselves with. That is what the police in certain areas will struggle to deal with, both in places like where I mentioned and bad neighbourhoods in places like Detroit, where there are plenty of people not afraid to use illegal weapons. The citizens need something to defend themselves from these people, and the police can't do it alone.
Fair enough in some scenarios, but I think that this is something which would be rectified should stricter laws come into place, hiring more officers and/or permitting gun ownership on the grounds of self defence in extreme circumstances could easily happen.
You're forgetting that the police can't teleport to your doorstep with a gun, you have to call and wait for them to arrive -- for the most part, they can only really do anything after the crime has taken place. But I can get a gun out of a safe in 30 seconds or so and sort the issue out myself, especially if it's a threat to my belongings or life.
OrangeRakoon wrote:row, out of interest, what "level" of weapon is your cutoff point where you think regular people /don't/ have a right to own them? For example, should people be allowed automatic weapons? What about a minigun? An RPG? A tank? An attack helicopter?

Once that is established, why do you place the arbitrary cutoff point as there, and how do you reconcile that with how it infringes upon personal freedoms?
No, I don't support automatic weapons and I don't support assault rifles either. You don't need an automatic weapon to partake in the hobby. Obviously collectors and historians can feel free to get hold of more (not easily though, I don't want people buying a machine gun from a gun shop), but they shouldn't ever be used. It's easy enough to partake in the hobby without going over the top. At some point we have to sacrifice some personal freedom to keep the public safe.

Rik wrote:The self defence argument you keep coming back to strikes me as pretty weak, why can't something like a taser or pepper spray suffice?
Good point. I said before that a citizen with a gun should only really threaten people if possible, not take direct action unless it's absolutely necessary. A gun is a more effective weapon to threaten people with than a taser or pepper spray, and I'd prefer to threaten someone with something big than to take action with something small. But that will vary from person to person. Not everybody is going to be comfortable using a taser or pepper spray on a criminal, most of those people would rather just be able to use the non-violent solution of threatening them with a gun without needing to pull the trigger.
Rik wrote:On top of that, if guns were easier to get ahold of, it'd just mean that small time criminals who wouldn't normally have access to the black market or whatever would have an easier time of arming themselves, meaning ordinary people would be at more of a risk.
Not if they have a criminal record already which can be picked up in a background check, I don't support criminals being able to obtain guns. Small crimes like drugs are fine, but robbers and murderers shouldn't be able to obtain guns. Given that the reoffending rate for criminals stands at 59% for less than 12 months and 36% for 1 - 4 years in prison (source), I'd argue that just a simple background check is enough to stop a large number of criminals from obtaining a gun. There will never be any real way to predict whether someone is going to commit a crime, the best we can do is prevent people who already have from doing it again. Which just requires a simple background check, and the stricter licensing we have at the moment does very little to prevent first-time offenders.
Rik wrote:
row101 wrote:
Kesskuron wrote: It's not even close
I was exaggerating, but you can't just take guns away from people who rely on them like some people here are suggesting.
Literally nobody has suggested that
Hell, most people have acknowledged that that would be dumb and wouldn't work
Fair enough, didn't mean to misinterpret what people said.
Rik wrote:
row101 wrote:silent majority
Source pls
I was referring to the US in that case (which I probably should have clarified, we were talking about the UK in context but I was getting my countries a little confused), and it doesn't take long to find that the vast majority of Americans support the Second Amendment, including most Democrats. The only issue which is controversial is expanding background checks and gun control (which I fully support) - the fundamental right to own a gun is very rarely debated because it's almost universally agreed on.

I couldn't find any decent polls on how many are in favour of the Second Amendment, but most people are in favour of gun rights. Source. In this case, gun control is still far less than what the UK has, it does not mean a ban on guns.

More Americans are in favour of gun rights than ever.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - George Washington

ChaosControl
Posts: 2282
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:55 am
NNID: jammydodger1985
3DS Friend Code: 270729914659
PSN ID: jammydodger1985
Steam ID: jammydodger1985

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by ChaosControl » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:40 pm

IronHide wrote:
Cribs wrote: You keep going on about Alaska and polar bears which I don't really get, if it really is that bad in Alaska then 1. why do people even live there, 2. Aren't polar bears endangered and therefore protected and 3. How does this even affect your point, people are asking for much stricter measures like they are here in the UK, I'm sure if there is reasonable danger in gooseberry fool Alaska then they will be allowed their guns but people in New Orleans for example are in a completely different scenario.
One word: Alligators

Seriously though, it's not just Alaska where dangerous animals live near to humans and in such places the 'self defence' argument is fairly valid, just not against armed criminals.

In Alaska however, there are Bear patrols which trap and relocate bears that become a nuisance/danger to people.
On that note, Australia is full of dangerous animals. But after they had a mass shooting, the government cracked down on gun restrictions. Which people thought was the sensible thing to do.
I should just be able to shoot in my garden for fun if I want to
No, you shouldn't. The noise for one thing is going to disturb your neighbours and terrify people. What if your neighbours have kids? What if you miss your target and accidentally kill some poor animal....or child?

My boyfriend is a huge gun enthusiast and dreams of one day owning a desert eagle. But he understands how ridiculously dangerous guns are and is perfectly willing to follow the laws we have in place.

You keep bringing up that people should be allowed to enjoy their hobby. Most hobbies don't put other people's lives in danger.
I am functioning within the established parameters.

User avatar
row101
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:11 pm
NNID: row101
3DS Friend Code: Hello world.
PSN ID: Why are you reading?
Xbox Gamertag: Why am I typing?
Steam ID: Why are we alive?

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by row101 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:45 pm

ChaosControl wrote:
I should just be able to shoot in my garden for fun if I want to
No, you shouldn't. The noise for one thing is going to disturb your neighbours and terrify people. What if your neighbours have kids? What if you miss your target and accidentally kill some poor animal....or child?

My boyfriend is a huge gun enthusiast and dreams of one day owning a desert eagle. But he understands how ridiculously dangerous guns are and is perfectly willing to follow the laws we have in place.

You keep bringing up that people should be allowed to enjoy their hobby. Most hobbies don't put other people's lives in danger.
Which is why people can use common sense. If you live in a town or city, then it's a stupid idea. If you live in a Texas desert, or in the UK's case you live in a massive field, you should be able to use it without causing a disturbance. The vast majority of gun owners are capable of using common sense.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - George Washington

User avatar
Nofes
Posts: 3030
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:38 pm
NNID: noffles
3DS Friend Code: 2320 6164 3159
PSN ID: Inofa
Xbox Gamertag: Inofa
Steam ID: Inofa

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Nofes » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:48 pm

So you'd sacrifice the safety of others just because you want to shoot in your garden?
Bucket

ChaosControl
Posts: 2282
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:55 am
NNID: jammydodger1985
3DS Friend Code: 270729914659
PSN ID: jammydodger1985
Steam ID: jammydodger1985

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by ChaosControl » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:49 pm

The vast majority of the general public are incapable of using common sense!
I am functioning within the established parameters.

User avatar
Met
Posts: 4096
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:59 pm
NNID: Metballs
3DS Friend Code: 031879326955
PSN ID: MetONM
Xbox Gamertag: Metballs
Steam ID: metonm

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Met » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:50 pm

For what it's worth, I have experience with competitive target shooting and feel our regulations are just fine. A gun is a weapon first and a hobby tool second. It should be as hard as possible to get hold of and only with very good reason. In fact, I'd suggest a basic competency test to go with it.

This isn't "oh no my liberty" it's just that I have seen people actually my shooting clubs I wouldn't let near a gun on their own.

For example, the number of times I saw someone raise a rifle above horizontal alone is scary. A bullet flying over a target won't just stop. It will keep going and could easily hit something or someone.
Image
<Kaee> I think Met would give better sex than Hoyle
cruizer wrote:I didn't start writing this with the intention of speaking about veganism; but the link between animal explotiation and oppressed human groups is so obvious

User avatar
Vtheyoshi
Posts: 3236
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:23 pm
NNID: vtheyoshi
Steam ID: VlaSoul

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Vtheyoshi » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:35 pm

No, shooting a gun outside of a regulated area with the express purpose of target shooting is dangerous and should not be done
what if someone walks across the field that the gun owner is shooting in
then someone's died or seriously injured because someone was allowed to shoot a dangerous weapon in a public area or an area that people could be in
Image

Thanks to yung Kriken for the sig and avatar (asuka best girl)
MAL
Deviantart (trying to be more active nowadays, views are always appreciated) UPDATED 21/06/17

User avatar
Met
Posts: 4096
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:59 pm
NNID: Metballs
3DS Friend Code: 031879326955
PSN ID: MetONM
Xbox Gamertag: Metballs
Steam ID: metonm

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Met » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:42 pm

The argument has always been about private property.

Unless it's not then what the gooseberry fool?
Image
<Kaee> I think Met would give better sex than Hoyle
cruizer wrote:I didn't start writing this with the intention of speaking about veganism; but the link between animal explotiation and oppressed human groups is so obvious

User avatar
row101
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:11 pm
NNID: row101
3DS Friend Code: Hello world.
PSN ID: Why are you reading?
Xbox Gamertag: Why am I typing?
Steam ID: Why are we alive?

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by row101 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:53 pm

I am indeed talking about private property. I've seen people use guns perfectly safely on private property. I know a gun from the military who let us use his gun in his massive field just to have some fun. No issues caused.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - George Washington

User avatar
Met
Posts: 4096
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:59 pm
NNID: Metballs
3DS Friend Code: 031879326955
PSN ID: MetONM
Xbox Gamertag: Metballs
Steam ID: metonm

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by Met » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:01 pm

But that's essentially under military supervision and training. In my case it was also under military supervision and I was trained by a warrant officer.

Not everyone has that luxury and it's those people I don't trust. It's why I called for a basic competency test because if you can't get a decent grouping with decent accuracy or know how your weapon works you're just a danger.
Image
<Kaee> I think Met would give better sex than Hoyle
cruizer wrote:I didn't start writing this with the intention of speaking about veganism; but the link between animal explotiation and oppressed human groups is so obvious

User avatar
JenovaPX
Posts: 6386
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:58 pm
PSN ID: JenovaPX
Steam ID: Jenova1039

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by JenovaPX » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:02 pm

Sure, again so long as you're firing at the horizontal and you know the direction you're firing in is private property for beyond the effective fire range of the weapon you're using. But I mean, why not just go to a shooting range if you just want to have fun shooting? Or join a society or club for it? I mean if you're wanting to go fire guns for fun no-one's stopping you, these things exist and offer a controlled environment which do all they can to guarantee no-one gets hurt and people are sensible and supervised with what are lethal weapons. I mean let's face it, the biggest and only point you're arguing remotely well is that it's fun, and props to you, shooting can be fun, same as any other sport like that but there are plenty of outlets for it.
Welcome to the True Man's World
Destiny is Destiny.

User avatar
IronHide
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:57 pm
Steam ID: IronHide1981

Re: Guns <Tools For Tools?>

Post by IronHide » Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:36 pm

If you desperately need to fire a gun then join the armed forces.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests