|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 29, 2011 08:32 AM |
|
|
I still fail to see a good reason why fire arms should be legal. Im for example, would want an armored and armed car - even better: a tank; streets are a dangerous place, and if someone is doing me wrong I'd like to be able to react in kind.
Speaking of cars, it's interesting to note that the main reason why the car industry isn't using high-tech material like that used in formula 1 cars to make cars "accident-proof", is the fact that such cars are too dangerous for standard cars in case of a crash (they wouldn't fold but basically ram into them, killing the occupants of the standard cars).
Also I would like to mine the perimeter of my house, secure it additionally with a deadly electric fence and have a couple automatic machine guns in wall mounts, just in case.
And since I'm probably a bad shot I would like this fluid-filled ammunition that makes a mess out of things when they hit something, and bigger than 9mil.
Dig this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpTbnYozQk4
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 09:23 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 09:24, 29 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
I still fail to see a good reason why fire arms should be legal.
Because there is a huge industry which produces them to start with - what is legal and what is not is very often defined by the economy and the latter does not give a damn about the moral. It's funny in way actually. My home town has a weapon-producing factory complex which employs some 20 000 people (and has capacity for more). It mainly deals in small firearms but not only. If you ask some of the workers if they care that their production is designed to kill or at least injure people, you are either going to confuse him or make him answer something like "Killing is bad but one has to make a living". I guess the mentality is the same everywhere.
Weapons are all around. This is since the dawn of civilization - and even before that to an extent - and it is not going to change just like that. If one person wants to kill another person, he'll find the means. Firearms just make things easier. Legalising or de-legalising firearm ownership solves no problems as laws can be successfully enforced only when people are willing to abide them and if people don't have the mentality to abide the laws, the latter are just some wishes. The real problem is with the way of thinking. Weapons are a manifestation of the insecurity and will disappear only when it is reduced to more bearable levels. This is unthinkable in the current society. On an individual level, a firearm is roughly as dangerous as its owner. That said, a shotgun in Elodin's possession is pretty dangerous due to his trigger-happy mentality. Another person may be even scared to touch the thing, let alone to point it at someone. Ruling out the unintentional accidents, in a normal scenario a firearm "available" for "home usage" is not more dangerous than, say, a knife suitable for throwing.
In short - even if somebody finds a way to get rid of all guns owned by the "regular citizens" - which I can't see happening in forseeable future - they will find another way to kill each other if this is their intention. Cure aimed at the symptoms will never work.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 09:50 AM |
|
|
I think, that is a very superficial and dismissive analysis.
And it produces no point. There are enough examples of things that would be very profitable to produce, but are STILL illegal, and there is lots of stuff that IS illegal, but STILL widely used.
Moreover there ARE enough countries that forbid ownership of fire arms.
Fire arms are definitely a danger for owners and bystanders. For most people, in a situation where a gun would be of use, they can be compared with an old lady that has a Ferrari in the garage, never made a driving license and is supposed to take a dying person to the next hospital. And IF the old lady HAS a driving license and DOES take the Ferrari out for a ride regularly, you can bet, most of the time she will take advantage of any excuse to test her skill.
That said, cars are dangerous as well and enough people are killed by it - however, there are rules (you've got to learn handling them, for example) and so on, and cars have a definite productive use.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 10:03 AM |
|
|
You seem to ignore the fact that this industry is in existance and can't just be stopped by snapping your fingers. If you think it can, be welcome to introduce a plan of how this is supposed to be done. But please make it believable and practically applicable. Talking nice things won't solve any problem.
As I said, whether something is legal or not is - by far - not the same as whether something exists or not. The laws never envelop the whole reality. Forbid someone something that he thinks he needs and you'll only motivate him to find it in another way. Make him believe that he doesn't need it and then he will not start looking for it at all. Simply telling him that guns (in this case) are not good won't help though, things are quite a bit more complicated than that.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 10:26 AM |
|
|
an armed civilian is a terrorist, not a civilian
- JC Denton
Guns brought NOTHING good to America. The crime rate is high, and assaults on houses are not something unheard of. So you have guns and you're still in a worse situation than Europeans. Doesn't that ring any bells? I guess the criminals, perfectly aware you might have guns, don't care anyway.
And even if you have one. How do you picture "self defense" with them? They are probably locked in a cabinet somewhere. If a thief comes to your house, and you're in it, will he be going like rambo through front door, shooting at everything in sight and screaming so you can fetch your minigun and kill him? Or will he sneak in and cut your throat?
Instead of making stupid points like "guns are good for self defense" (They are HORRIBLE for self defense, actually, for many reasons I will mention later), get an ALARM. The modern sets are perfectly capable of movement detection and are highly reliable; I know what I'm talking about since I work with my father sometimes which install those at people's homes. They have a built-in dialer that automatically alerts security (or police or whatever number you wish it to dial) when an alarm triggers; The range of options for modern systems is massive, it's no longer the clumsy I-turn-on-when-a-bird-sits-on-my-balcony detection method. And what does deter criminals better, the thought that you have a gun (locked in a cabinet while you're sound asleep when he comes to rob you) or the alarm that will make his eardrums explode when it sets off?
Get yourself a big dog if you're paranoid that alarm isn't enough, those are awesome repellants.
Seriously, if you have a good alarm set and a dog, why would you EVER need a gun? if someone breaches through these, it's most likely an (highly unlikely) organized assault that's most likely launched when you're away or asleep, so your uber gunstick will do nothing anyway.
THAT'S a proper method for burglars. Not some ridiculous ideas like "me blast them with shotgunz". Lmao.
And why are guns exactly horrible for self-defense?
- Police tests show that the range you can safely defend with a gun - unless you're having it unlocked and ready - is about 7-9 meters. Below that, you will get stabbed before you take it out. On streets, since you obviously don't walk with a unlocked gun in your hand, that's a big disadvantage. If someone walks to you, do you auto-take the gun in your hand? If he's near, a knife will easily beat your gun, making it useless.
- Some people, while not being "perfect Christians", actually aren't as indifferent towards killing a human being as Elodin. Guns usually kill. The "leg shot" is BS. In panic, you will not take marksman shots; provided you manage to even take a shot.
- Accidents. There's a ton of kids that died/killed their friends or family because they took daddy's gun to school to show off.
- At home, as mentioned above, without alarm you're likely to be surprised, and with the gun locked away far from your position, it's as useless as defending yourself with a toothpick.
- If the access to guns is easy, the criminal most likely has one and is ready to use it. And you're sitting somewhere without it. Again it's useless.
- Even if you spotted the burglar and you're armed, are you sure you will manage to kill him before he kills you? I wouldn't put my life on stake. he might have better reflex. If you "shout a warning" first, he may as well in panic pull the trigger. It's a pointless risk.
In other words: guns suck, and are NOT good for self defense.
My only guess is that Elodin will ignore all my points and still go on that his shotgun is awesome self defense.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 10:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
then we are playing a video game
How do you differentiate between a video game and a non-video game?
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 10:56 AM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 11:01, 29 Apr 2011.
|
If only people would stop being so goddamn scared. This mass production of weapons is so pointless, why should we waste huge amounts of money on something that doesn't serve a good purpose other then to make paranoid people rest easy.
But lets think about this, when will someone truly feel safe? There will always be something to be ****-scared of.
So personally I think there should be strong regulations on who should be able to own firearms. For example if a person both have been proven fit for owning and have a good reason for the weapon.(like hunting, shooting club...)
Otherwise this mania that everyone should have the freedom to own firearms is just ridiculous and it only fuels more silly terror scenarios and whatnot.
Edit: I was hesitating to post this, but since it's so biased I decided not to.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 10:58 AM |
|
|
I don't see the need for guns, even if it is to defend your house and property, when doing something much simpler would be just as effective and won't entail murder charges.
something called "locking your door", heard of it?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 11:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You seem to ignore the fact that this industry is in existance and can't just be stopped by snapping your fingers. If you think it can, be welcome to introduce a plan of how this is supposed to be done. But please make it believable and practically applicable. Talking nice things won't solve any problem.
As I said, whether something is legal or not is - by far - not the same as whether something exists or not. The laws never envelop the whole reality. Forbid someone something that he thinks he needs and you'll only motivate him to find it in another way. Make him believe that he doesn't need it and then he will not start looking for it at all. Simply telling him that guns (in this case) are not good won't help though, things are quite a bit more complicated than that.
I still don't see any good reason why fire arms should be legal. Nor do I see a connection to the thread topic.
Besides, your reasoning is absurd, because it would mean that it doesn't matter whether something is legal or illegal, which would mean we could all save us a lot of trouble by throwing the law outta the window.
What you maybe want to say, but can't phrase accordingly, is that there is a gun lobby that firmly opposes all initiatives of making ownership of fire arms illegal.
That, however, has nothing to do with the thread and how it SHOULD be, because that is the question here: if ownership of fire weapons is ok, nothing would have to be changed at all. The question is NOT, at this stage, how this should be done, IF it was decided that fire arms should be illegal.
That said, there ARE lots of countries where they ARE illegal, so it obviously IS possible, even though Germany for example is one of the main fire arms and weapons producers in the world (with a big industry), but STILL you need a licence (and a good reason) to own one in Germany.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 11:03 AM |
|
|
I think it's important to differentiate between feeling safe and being safe. We might be 100% safe (after all, we don't even know what happens to us after death), but we've a feeling of not being safe.
Some might feel safe through means of religion, etc. Having no doubt that no matter what happens they're safe, yet reality might be completely different.
In my opinion, it's about being safe, not feeling safe. What good does it do to listen to feelings anyway? The point is, we do the best we can to be safe, the feeling of not being safe doesn't help us at all, however, at least not when we've done all we possible can to be safe.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 01:16 PM |
|
|
I find it quite interesting that people here think carrying/possession of a gun makes it less possible you become victim of a crime.
Did any of you ever read any crime statistics of the USA?
In comparison to those of western european countries?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 01:38 PM |
|
|
We can't compare such different cultures as USA and Europe. If anyone is allowed to carry a weapon, ie USA, then definitely it makes you a less potential victim if you have one for self defense (assuming you got some training). But in Europe, owning fire weapons for a criminal is quite an exceptional thing.
I am definitely against fire weapons as common pocket object, because it can't lead to anything good. But it comes to the owner maturity and experience, for example, I would find much less dangerous a weapon in Angelito/JJ's hands than in Elodin's ones.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We can't compare such different cultures as USA and Europe. If anyone is allowed to carry a weapon, ie USA, then definitely it makes you a less potential victim if you have one for self defense (assuming you got some training).
Some training usually isn't enough. The thing that makes most weapons (and martial arts) useless in tough situations is stress. That's why you'd need lots of "practical" training and psychological, too. Like soldiers, for instance.
An average 9-to-5 has neither skills nor balls to use a weapon.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 02:57 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, this I meant, no only loading weapon. Some training to avoid killing your wife when she just wakes up in the night to drink some water. Be able to rate the danger and react properly.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 07:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We can't compare such different cultures as USA and Europe. If anyone is allowed to carry a weapon, ie USA, then definitely it makes you a less potential victim if you have one for self defense
Exactly this is what I highly doubt! If a burglar doesn't expect his victim to have a weapon, he won't have one either --> Western european countries! If a burglar expects his victim to have a gun, he will one bring aswell. And then there will be a shooting without any questions of course.--> America!
If your statement would be true, we would have much lesser crime victims in the USA than in Germany for example, because much more people in the USA carry a gun than in Germany. But it is completely the opposit!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 07:49 PM |
|
|
There are only 2 countries in the world apparently. USA and Germany.
There are several countries where owning rifles isn't at all uncommon, and they have low violent crime. Violence is rooted in social and cultural issues. Killing a person isn't hard with or without a gun. I could get up and massacre the person next door to me in less than a minute from now if I wanted to.
A small slice of the homicides in the US come from home burglaries. I don't know what your fixation is with burglaries. Most of it comes from street violence between warring gangs and drug cartels. That's why the homicides rates are so insane in cities like New Orleans, Detroit, and Washington D.C., and comparatively exceedingly lower in other places. The region I live in has a violent crime rate comparable with W. Europe, and plenty of people here own rifles and occasionally handguns.
(Note that I'm not even claiming guns are particularly effective for home defense. The average person would sleep through the entire thing or piss their pants. If you're worried about home security, I'd recommend a pet dog).
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I still don't see any good reason why fire arms should be legal. Nor do I see a connection to the thread topic.
Besides, your reasoning is absurd, because it would mean that it doesn't matter whether something is legal or illegal, which would mean we could all save us a lot of trouble by throwing the law outta the window.
What you maybe want to say, but can't phrase accordingly, is that there is a gun lobby that firmly opposes all initiatives of making ownership of fire arms illegal.
That, however, has nothing to do with the thread and how it SHOULD be, because that is the question here: if ownership of fire weapons is ok, nothing would have to be changed at all. The question is NOT, at this stage, how this should be done, IF it was decided that fire arms should be illegal.
That said, there ARE lots of countries where they ARE illegal, so it obviously IS possible, even though Germany for example is one of the main fire arms and weapons producers in the world (with a big industry), but STILL you need a licence (and a good reason) to own one in Germany.
I'll try to be as clear as possible so you can't make voluntaristic interpretations of my posts - I'm neither supporting, nor advocating the legalisation of the firearm ownership. As for the topic itself - I don't really care if it is legal or not because it makes little difference. That is the real problem and it will not be fixed by formalistic approaches like "banning the firearms" or whatever. This is a limited, temporary remedy. As long as guns are being produced for whatever purposes, they'll find their way to the potential "civilian" buyers. If the weapon industry suddenly stops functioning and all the millions tons of stockpiled firearms get destroyed - a fairy-tale scenario - then people will find other ways to kill each other. That's because nobody kills just because he/she has a gun. Or - because you seem to like rhetoric analogies - nobody eats just because he/she has a fork. A law against the possession of firearms thus could reduce the quantity of the manslaughters or injuries done with guns and that's it - the crime rate will remain pretty much the same, only the tools will be different. In short - you've got the wrong suspect, officer.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm neither supporting, nor advocating the legalisation of the firearm ownership. As for the topic itself - I don't really care if it is legal or not
Then don't post here.
Quote:
because it makes little difference.
Says you.
Quote:
That is the real problem and it will not be fixed by formalistic approaches like "banning the firearms" or whatever. This is a limited, temporary remedy.
Better than nothing.
Quote:
That's because nobody kills just because he/she has a gun.
Says you. You may want to research that.
I firmly believe that it makes sense to treat a broken leg, even if the patient has cancer. And I'd like to add that I don't like people who dismiss initiatives and activities for the better because of "too small" an effect and don't solve a problem at its foundation when there is no hope to do that soon.
I'm well aware that the crime rate in the US ain't the result of the fact that they allow fire arms. I've made a couple of posts about it myself.
But that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant. Fire arms make for COLLATERAL DAMAGE. A lot of it. Which means that they should be illegal. Independently of the crima rate, because the crime rate is just one factor. It's not the only one.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 04:42 AM |
|
|
Should people be allowed to carry fire arms?
In public? No. (Unless the zombies come...)
Should people be allowed to have fire arms in their house?
If they pass a competency test and are proven not to be a psychopath.
Does gun possession by an innocent person help prevent that person from being a victim?
Only in special cases. AKA, every single person has a gun. You, (the mugger) have no idea who has a faster draw than you. Thus, muggings go down. Problem is, not everyone has a gun...
Should a person have the right to defend himself or should everyone be forced to rely on the government alone for self defense?
Yes, they have a right to defend themselves, the degree to which they go does depend on the situation. With a mugging or a break-and entry, just knocking the person out or making a citizen's arrest should be enough. With the zombies( ) or wild animals though, a firearm is the preferred method.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 06:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see the need for guns, even if it is to defend your house and property, when doing something much simpler would be just as effective and won't entail murder charges.
something called "locking your door", heard of it?
How about a sign? Wouldn't that keep out the bad guys?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
