[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;32387481]In my opinion, gun laws should be far more strict. But let's just ask a rhetorical question: Do you even need guns? Because if criminals don't have guns, you don't need guns in the first place to defend yourself.
I have seen people using the argument "even if you ban guns criminals will get guns" really often. I am pretty sure a one-time gas station robber couldn't be able to get a gun to commit that crime, since they are illegal/very hard to get, and I somehow doubt that petty robber would go find a weapon smuggler for himself or buy one from the black market.
Here, in Hungary, crimes committed with the use of guns make national news, since they are that rare.[/QUOTE]
Every part of your post (well, maybe except the last sentence) is wrong.
[quote]Because if criminals don't have guns, you don't need guns in the first place to defend yourself.[/quote]
Very untrue. Guns allow women, the elderly, and the frail to defend themselves against strong attackers. They also allow lone people to defend themselves against gangs. How do you expect a single man to defend himself against a group of attackers, whether they are armed or not?
In this way, guns turn the tables where otherwise brute strength rules. They make people equal, whether they are weak or strong.
[quote]I have seen people using the argument "even if you ban guns criminals will get guns" really often. I am pretty sure a one-time gas station robber couldn't be able to get a gun to commit that crime, since they are illegal/very hard to get,[/quote]
Being a Hungarian with little knowledge of firearms in America, I don't think you're exactly qualified to make that statement.
The "black market" is not a hidden superstore where you can buy anything. When someone buys a gun from the "black market," that means he purchased it with cash from the guy down the street.
And the guy down the street bought it for cheap off someone who grabbed it while robbing a house.
Or it was brought into the country aboard a poorly secured cargo ship, as is sometimes the case when criminals use automatic weapons (as they are incredibly expensive to buy legally in the US.)
[QUOTE=Fables;32386586]Just wait 'till Europe is up then this will turn into a fun thread.[/QUOTE]
Good morning.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32387324]Tasers are [i]only[/i] useful if you plan on running away immediately or physically subduing the target. Otherwise, they will just stand back up like nothing happened.[/QUOTE]
Ahaha, oh wow. I'd like to see you standing up after getting tasered. It's not something you can just shake off, muscles don't just go and work perfectly after you course electricity through them.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;32387332]Guns prevent crimes and if people are dumb enough to attempt to break in someones house with the intention to steal or hurt the occupants, they deserve to get shot, helps cut down on crime and if most people own guns then criminals will be too scared to commit crimes unless they have guns themselves.[/QUOTE]
Nobody deserves to get shot. Criminals are usually forced, or think that they are forced, to live like they do. They won't be "more scared" if you get more guns. Rarely would a criminal even know if you had guns in your house.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;32387477]I'm fine with the possession of firearms, and I agree with Sector 7's post. We should have mandatory background checks, and instead of just teaching people, "GUNS ARE EVIL" we should have gun education courses given to students in late middle school or early highschool (7th Grade - 10th Grade?) which teach them the operations of a firearm and safety precautions..[/QUOTE]
Probably wouldn't be done because it costs too much money to the state/school. Also, it might not even educate the kids considering how much they listen to teachers these days.
But overall, gun control will not reduce the amount of guns in the black market, neither will it stop anyone from getting a gun illegally. It might reduce the amount of "accidents" that happen with guns, such as someone using the gun while intoxicated etc.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32386783]Two years ago some very angry people showed up at my neighbor's house at one in the morning. Aftermath of a drunken argument. But they showed up with large sledge hammers and a fire axe. I called the cops and watched for 15 minutes while these people utterly destroyed the front of my neighbor's home, smashing the deck to bits, breaking windows, and the person with the axe even reached for the door handle before my neighbor opened it and knocked them out with an uppercut to the jaw.
It took the cops 15 minutes to get there. My neighbors could have been slaughtered.[/QUOTE]
Did you not call your neighbors?
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
tell them to run or something
Guns should be legalized in a country like the US, or Canada, any country really with an excess of public guns already in the hands of the people, and they should be reasonably regulated. Anything else is just ridiculous, and unfeasible.
But in countries where the guns aren't common at all, I can understand the reasoning for not having them legal.
[QUOTE=Dr. O;32387300]IMO everyone should just get some goddamned tasers.
Everybody wins.[/QUOTE]
Tasers are worse than firearms. Tasers can easily kill but people think they can't and overuse them. At least with guns all but the stupidest of people will realize they are holding a completely lethal weapon.
My personal views on this subject are that guns should be controlled, but not necessarily banned. People should have to prove competency in using the type of firearm they're buying (gun safety course with a test, both written and practical) and undergo background checks, but beyond that I have nothing against guns. Let's not kid ourselves, they're designed for killing things and are inherently a "violent" object but lots of things are and if they're being used responsibly they're fine.
I also think there should be strict penalties for people who willingly and knowingly misuse firearms and the government should have the power to ban repeat offenders from handling them. (I assume something like this is already in place but I don't know)
[QUOTE=Fables;32386586]Just wait 'till Europe is up then this will turn into a fun thread.[/QUOTE]
Yes wait till a whole continent with different countries and timezones is up.
The way guns are controlled in the Netherlands is fine for now but still a bit too strict. The way it works is we have to be "trained" in a certain caliber before we can even consider purchasing the firearm that uses it. And even then someone can only have 5 firearms max.
The only problem we have is the way the police checks it, because the police has to check every firearm license holder in their region and most of the time only a small team has to do that. Which in the end can lead to mistakes and a bunch of people dying by a mental sick with a .22 AR ripoff.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
however to the main point of gun control, make the background checks more thorough.
[QUOTE=aydin690;32386691]I think you're missing my point. Why would anyone need a gun? And i'm not looking for smart ass answers like "well, hunters need them lol".[/QUOTE]
Why [i]shouldn't[/i] I be allowed to have a firearm? I handle my firearms safely, I keep them in locked cases and don't let anybody else handle them unless they demonstrate that they can handle them with safety aswell.
I'm not looking for smart ass answers like "Well you're a civilian."
I think education is the most important thing in regards to guns, regardless of how strict the laws are.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32389017]I think education is the most important thing in regards to guns, regardless of how strict the laws are.[/QUOTE]
I agree. However the way people are educated should also matter. Because for all we know education could just be an excuse to tell people "guns are bad and need to be banned! they make the loud boom and kill the human!"
[QUOTE=Fables;32386586]Just wait 'till Europe is up then this will turn into a fun thread.[/QUOTE]
Excellent generalisation there pal. I'm very pro-gun, and many people in certain parts of Europe are.
I think guns should be seen as a privilege — not a right. Civilians should only be able to own guns if they do certain activites such as sport shooting, hunting, collecting etc. When it comes to crime prevention I view loose gun laws as a rather unethical approach, because then it is security through violence and not genuine security. The ones who are most likely to commit crimes are those with a low income, so the best way of preventing them to do it is not by threatening them with guns. Reducing poverty and raising the income of the lower classes to make them content with the society is a much better method, because then you can achieve genuine security as opposed to forced security.
you're approaching this from the angle of "guns are a bad solution to crime". It's true on a large scale, but guns and reducing poverty or raising incomes are not mutually exclusive.
I don't want to ban guns, I just want to restrict access so only those who actually have a legitimate purpose of having a gun can actually use it. When you have achieved genuine security then having guns for other purposes than the ones stated above will be redundant.
Banning guns just mean criminal have them. They are criminals after all, they are sure as hell not going to listen to the law.
America's crime problem isn't because of guns, it's because they're society is fucked up. Look as Switzerland! they have the fourth highest gun ownership in the world (one gun for every second person), and they have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.
Anyway, I think gun ownership is a right for any sound minded and law abiding adult. You don't need your car that can go 250km/h, there isn't anywhere you can drive at that speed, but no one questions your need for that car. I don't need a reason for guns.
To those who say "using a gun against a robber/rapist/murderer will just make things worse". Put yourself in that situation, would you let yourself die, or would you prefer that the murder die instead of you? Should we deny a gun to a little old lady who can't protect herself from a murderer/rapist? It's not like she can fight back
I'm not really sure about this issue. Guns are heavily regulated here in Australia, and here in the news it is rare to actually find a story reporting that someone injured / killed someone with a gun, compared to the United States where such a story would be published every few days. The population of the United States is fifteen times larger than Australia (roughly), but for every story where a gun has injured / killed someone down here in Australia, there would have been at least 50 if not around a 100 similar reports in the United States.
US society might be poorer than Australia, but I am not an expert on the issue. As far as I know, we are a safer place and we might owe that to heavy restrictions on gun ownership.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32389995]The ones who are most likely to commit crimes are those with a low income, so the best way of preventing them to do it is not by threatening them with guns. .[/QUOTE]
How about we just ban guns from the poor people.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;32390243]I'm not really sure about this issue. Guns are heavily regulated here in Australia, and here in the news it is rare to actually find a story reporting that someone injured / killed someone with a gun, compared to the United States where such a story would be published every few days. The population of the United States is fifteen times larger than Australia (roughly), but for every story where a gun has injured / killed someone down here in Australia, there would have been at least 50 if not around a 100 similar reports in the United States.
US society might be poorer than Australia, but I am not an expert on the issue. As far as I know, we are a safer place and we might owe that to heavy restrictions on gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
Australia also has the benefit of geographical isolation. In the US, we have a very large border to the most unstable countries in the Western Hemisphere. A region with unchecked firearms usage by paramilitary forces and gangs that rival most city's law enforcement agencies.
Is there any sort of psychology/competence test before giving someone a gun ? In my opinion when someone buys a gun he should have to go on a day long lesson in a shooting range where he has to learn how and when to use his gun, how to clean it properly, and be said two hundred times the gun is not a toy, not a way of solving all of your problems, not an excuse and not without danger, even for the owner.
I think owning a firearm should depend on were you live, it should be easier to obtain in countries/states with high amount of firearms and crime, you should almost teach the population gun control and gun safety.
I believe no man has any need for an automatic gun of any sort. High chances are you don't need to hunt for your families survival. High chances are your place of residency won't be invaded(and if it was, would you really try to defend your place of residence against an invading force?).
Owning a gun [i]can[/i] save your life, but it's not a life insurance, and most importantly it's can very easily backfire, especially if no instruction is given other that "you point it, you shoot it"
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32390487]Is there any sort of psychology/competence test before giving someone a gun ? In my opinion when someone buys a gun [b]he should have to go on a day long lesson in a shooting range where he has to learn how and when to use his gun[/b], how to clean it properly, and be said two hundred times the gun is not a toy, not a way of solving all of your problems, not an excuse and not without danger, even for the owner.[/QUOTE]
It's not forced but the general consensus out there is if you're unsure and want to be fully informed and safe about it, go to one and get educated, I went to to one and didn't regret it.
I'd think for first time buyers they should advertise these more. They're really helpful.
They should probably make the mandatory as well.
I mean I can already see the moron going to buy a gun and go all like "lol fuck dem lessons I know how dat shit works" and ends up killing someone by accident because "lol don't know what trigger discipline is"
[QUOTE=credesniper;32390573]I believe no man has any need for an automatic gun of any sort. High chances are you don't need to hunt for your families survival. High chances are your place of residency won't be invaded(and if it was, [b]would you really try to defend your place of residence against an invading force?[/b]).[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? Is this meant to be a rhetorical question of some kind?
Anyway the first part of your post, Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. If I want an automatic rifle then by jove I'm going to get it (as soon as I fill out this small mountain of paperwork and pay $1000 tax on top of the obscenely high price of the firearm and find a store that even sells the darn things)
It's not because it's a right that it shouldn't be watched over though.
Sweden has a pretty good system for this,
For pistols you have to be in a club for 6 months and shoot good enough to be able to own handguns,
And for rifles / shotguns you have to go something that is called Hunting exam then you can own several rifles / shotguns
The thing is that you need to put time into it to get the privilage
[QUOTE=credesniper;32390573]I believe no man has any need for an automatic gun of any sort. High chances are you don't need to hunt for your families survival. High chances are your place of residency won't be invaded(and if it was, would you really try to defend your place of residence against an invading force?).[/QUOTE]
i might not need it, but i think it'd be fine to have. there's no need to regulate this kind of thing if we deal with underlying problems of crime and poverty first.
Poverty + Guns = Crime
Poverty + Lots of not hard to find guns = Lots of crime
It doesn't depend only on it but you can be assured the cheaper the guns are and the easier they are to get, the most people will get their chance at crime.
[QUOTE=evilking1;32390269]How about we just ban guns from the poor people.[/QUOTE]How about we reduce poverty.
[QUOTE=Orki;32390842]Sweden has a pretty good system for this,
For pistols you have to be in a club for 6 months and shoot good enough to be able to own handguns,
And for rifles / shotguns you have to go something that is called Hunting exam then you can own several rifles / shotguns
The thing is that you need to put time into it to get the privilage[/QUOTE]
It's almost exactly the same here in the Netherlands only I believe the time is 12 months rather than 6. I'm still convinced not much will change thanks to that. The only way they could keep legal firearms out of dangerous hands are by better and thorough background checks. Because like I said before people with mental illnesses somehow passed background checks and stupid shit happened. And instead of getting angry at the police that failed the background check they point the finger at the civilians for owning firearms.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
