[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49307327]gang shootouts almost never happen anymore anyway.[/QUOTE]
There was a gang shootout in Waco like eight months ago that ended with nine people dying.
I had my apartment broken into by 2 guys, one with a tire iron and the other with an aluminum baseball bat. The second they saw me standing at the end of a hallway facing the door with a Yugoslavian AK pointed right out them screaming, "GET THE FUCK OUT," you can guess what they did next.
What would have happened if I didn't have a firearm? Those guys weren't just there to rob. I was making noise, the lights were on, they knew someone was home. They were armed with weapons that could very easily fuck someone up. I'm trained in martial arts, but I can't take on a tire iron and baseball bat in close quarters.
I was pro-gun before that, but it just drove the nail deeper. Everyone disconnects themselves and thinks that shit will never happen to them, but I guarantee every anti-gun person out there and in this thread would be wishing they had one if those 2 guys barreled through the door right now.
[QUOTE=Shark Bones;49305791]Swords are antique possessions, especially older sabres and the like. They are prized collector's items. But nah it's a weapon designed for death, clearly having it in a locked glass case as an heirloom or a prized possession is just way outta line and super dangerous, right?[/QUOTE]
We have to invent something more deadly than guns for the average man to be able to use so guns will be okay to have
Right now between federal, state, city, and community there are over 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. and people are saying "MOAR!" No, no more laws because the laws mean shit to criminals. I have spoken several times at city council meetings on regulations for Ohio state and Columbus city. In Columbus the law used to be that to get a Conceal Carry license you had to take a 12 hour course, 10 hours of talking, 2 hours of shooting. That's bullshit, I spoke along with several other people that all that is doing is discourging people to use their constitutional right.
7 months later the law is now you are only required to an 8 hour class. Mine was 6 hours of humor, education and fun all around with 2 hours of shooting. That's it, there is no reason at all why it should be longer than that. In Massachusetts it's 40 HOURS and Massachusetts is one of the top states for shootings.
I am now speaking out saying to arm some teachers in schools, but I want it done correctly, each teacher that is armed is required (to take the 8 hour course first of all) have an extensive universal background check, which takes 10 - 15 minutes. The teacher can not open carry in class. Once every other week submit to a log. Pretty much how security guards have to do with their weapons.
Then people call me "sick and evil" for wanting that, excuse me, I lost 3 fucking cousins in school shootings, and they would still be alive today if teachers were armed so when people say "when it happens to you, you'll want them banned." No it's happened to me 3 times and I want more schools with armed teachers and/or civilian clothed armed Police Officers (my school had.)
People refuse to think, it's always, every time "They got gun! FUCK GUNSHOPS!" Ever heard of BLACK MARKET? The news glorifies promoting illogical fear of guns. "He bought it legally, he found it from his parents house." Yet over 90% of the time they will never say that, they don't say "He illegally bought it from black market or the street." The just say "He got gun."
Gun control has always been about feelings "waa- dead kids." A marine once spoke at a congressional hearing and said "The constitution OVERRIDES your dead!" I could not agree anymore.
Gun control in the U.S. DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. Then you get people like the U.K. who banned them and now those poor guys are having a stabbing frenzy over there. All laws do is create more innocent victims, create more dead kids, and strip rights from law abiding citizens.
I do however like Trump's idea. 5 years minimum in prision for commiting ANY crime with a firearm, you don't even have to fire it, ontop of your regular scentance 5 years is a little harsh, I'd say about a year myself.
Whoa this is one of the first times I've generally agreed with Rusty. I really don't get the US and their guns.
It all seems to boil down to "It's one of our freedoms as it's in the constitution." The main problem I have with that is the constitution was written when the country was at a point where you needed a weapon to defend yourself against the wildlife/natives, and even then the concept of a gun was very different then to what it is now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the late 1700s guns were still more or less muskets.
And about people saying that guns are needed for sports, they should still be allowed in in controlled environments for sporting events, but you don't need that gun while walking around a city center.
[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;49307889]Whoa this is one of the first times I've generally agreed with Rusty. I really don't get the US and their guns.
It all seems to boil down to "It's one of our freedoms as it's in the constitution." The main problem I have with that is the constitution was written when the country was at a point where you needed a weapon to defend yourself against the wildlife/natives, and even then the concept of a gun was very different then to what it is now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the late 1700s guns were still more or less muskets.
And about people saying that guns are needed for sports, they should still be allowed in in controlled environments for sporting events, but you don't need that gun while walking around a city center.[/QUOTE]
In 1791 the concept of a gun that did not need to be reloaded after every shot was not new. The Puckle Gun had been created many years prior, though never gained as much traction as the later Gatling Gun and then of course the Machine Gun.
In terms of rifles the Girandoni Air Rifle, which had a magazine that could hold 20 rounds, and could be primed to fire 30 before repumping as it required air to fire (Lewis and Clark even brought one with them on their expedition, and was used by the Austrian Military). While primitave by today's standards, it showed quite easily where firearms were headed - and the founding fathers were not idiots.
[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;49307889]Whoa this is one of the first times I've generally agreed with Rusty. I really don't get the US and their guns.
It all seems to boil down to "It's one of our freedoms as it's in the constitution." The main problem I have with that is the constitution was written when the country was at a point where you needed a weapon to defend yourself against the wildlife/natives, and even then the concept of a gun was very different then to what it is now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the late 1700s guns were still more or less muskets.
And about people saying that guns are needed for sports, they should still be allowed in in controlled environments for sporting events, but you don't need that gun while walking around a city center.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, the second amendment was written to give citizens an option to fight back against an overbearing controlling Government takeover. Sporting events are already so controled it's pathetic, and you DO need that gun while walking a city center because cities are the best placed to become a victim.
The 2nd amendment did not give anyone rights. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, is a set of unalienable "god given" rights. They are not granted by the government, they are recognized by the government. Every individual in the world is born with the inherent right to defend their own life and the lives of those they care about. Some countries choose to take that right away, the 2nd amendment was made to ensure the United States never does.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49307940]Wrong, the second amendment was written to give citizens an option to fight back against an overbearing controlling Government takeover. Sporting events are already so controled it's pathetic, and you DO need that gun while walking a city center because cities are the best placed to become a victim.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49307965]The 2nd amendment did not give anyone rights. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, is a set of unalienable "god given" rights. They are not granted by the government, they are recognized by the government. Every individual in the world is born with the inherent right to defend their own life and the lives of those they care about. Some countries choose to take that right away, the 2nd amendment was made to ensure the United States never does.[/QUOTE]
The entire concept behind the 2nd amendment is hilariously childish and stupid. "The government can't fuck up because if they do we got our guns to shoot them back in line" is idiotic and the concept hasn't worked for centuries (if ever). At this point it's practically just a ploy to keep people in line because they're still firmly clinging onto the belief that having a gun somehow gives them some form of relevancy and somehow acts as a safeguard to their liberties.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49307940] you DO need that gun while walking a city center because cities are the best placed to become a victim.[/QUOTE]
Do you? I've never once walked through a city streets and felt so threatened that I needed a gun, and I live on "knife attack island" if what most people for gun ownership are to be believed.
Every reason for guns read like the ramblings of a mad man who thinks everyone is out to kill him.
At least for me, it would be the "I'd rsther be safe than sorry" motto. I'll probably never need to use a gun in self defense, but I'd rather be prepared in case I do.
[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;49308019]Do you? I've never once walked through a city streets and felt so threatened that I needed a gun, and I live on "knife attack island" if what most people for gun ownership are to be believed.
Every reason for guns read like the ramblings of a mad man who thinks everyone is out to kill him.[/QUOTE]
I don't carry my .45 in the city for just for me, I carry it for anyone in a life threatening situation. I walk around my city and I feel just as safe as you do. Columbus is one of the more non violent cities, the only difference is, I am ready to defend myself or another person instead of waiting on the phone to cops that will get there too late.
Okay, whatever floats your boat guys. It feels like there is just too much risk of people pulling a gun on people in a heated situation, when the pay off is "Yo if the really rare occurrence happens that my life, or someone else's life, is in danger, I can use my gun to subdue the bad man".
But hey, I'm not a politician, so what I say means jack shit. Just thought I'd throw my opinions out.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49307983]The entire concept behind the 2nd amendment is hilariously childish and stupid. "The government can't fuck up because if they do we got our guns to shoot them back in line" is idiotic and the concept hasn't worked for centuries (if ever). At this point it's practically just a ploy to keep people in line because they're still firmly clinging onto the belief that having a gun somehow gives them some form of relevancy and somehow acts as a safeguard to their liberties.[/QUOTE]
Nobody thinks an armed populace could stop an oppressive movement by the government. You're strawmanning way too hard here, nobody is saying a revolution could defeat our modern military. However, having an armed populace greatly dissuades any sort of action like that. Our government knows if it wants to become oppressive, there will be casualties. They will win, but people will die, a lot of them. And they know in the modern age of information, other countries watching US citizens being slaughtered by their own government would make them look really, really shitty. They would most likely intervene and then our military would be fighting another military.
Take guns out of the equation and people won't resist at all. There might be a few die-hards who set off some homemade bombs here and there, but they'll be demonized by propaganda and too few in number to get the people behind them. Look at the mentality of people in the UK, they are told if someone breaks into their home to just let them. Just let the guy rob you, don't try and fight him off, let yourself be the helpless prey and hope he doesn't want to hurt you. That's what a disarmed mentality is like, if you have nothing to fight with then you will most likely not want to fight.
Just like how a school shooter would not shoot up somewhere with armed individuals, he is looking for the easiest route possible. He will not do it if there is perceived resistance. A government will not oppress their people if there will be significant perceived resistance, even if said resistance could be easily stomped out.
[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;49308059]Okay, whatever floats your boat guys. It feels like there is just too much risk of people pulling a gun on people in a heated situation, when the pay off is "Yo if the really rare occurrence happens that my life, or someone else's life, is in danger, I can use my gun to subdue the bad man".
But hey, I'm not a politician, so what I say means jack shit. Just thought I'd throw my opinions out.[/QUOTE]
Just because the U.K. has a massive wave of stabbings does not mean it isn't safe, it just means that criminals are using knives to commit crimes, and even then that doesn't mean it's going to happen to you. In Ohio they teach you to do everything you can before using your gun because we are the only state where the burden of self defense acting is on you. You must prove to a court you acted in self defense, even if you just shot them in the leg the jury is still going to go "Why didn't you just punch them?" You must be dammed sure you did everything possible to disconnect the threat before taking a human life or crippling them. My Conceal Carry instructor could not stress enough that the gun is never the first option. I'm going to quote him. "Please, do not ever draw it because you're mad or it's something minor. Always always ALWAYS remember, the taking of a human life is one of the worst, if not the worst thing, you can do in your life. Criminals do not value life, we do, and you need to be sure that if you squeeze that trigger that it was your absolute last option, and you must be sure you are able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to a court that you had no choice."
I would never draw my firearm unless it was absolutely the last option. The best things to do are:
- Remove yourself from the situation
- If unable to, call 911
- If it escalates then you go to your hands, your knife, your pepper spray, your dick, anything but your gun unless it is going to end with you in the morgue to which at that point I will make the choice to defend my life or a victims life.
But that's in public, home invasions are much different, the second that foot comes in the house that's it, they are dead. Many people make the mistake of "well he just broke in he's not violent." Then it ends with a rape a murder, a kidnapping. Never assume they are in your house to steal, always assume they are there to do bodily harm because if you don't they are going to charge and attack you or they may just give up, run out the door, but never assume that they are going to surrender. In Ohio the castle doctrine law is applied, but then you get states like Maryland where they say not only can you not defend yourself or your home YOU MUST FLEE! Yeah, and what are you going to do when you can't get out the house? A man was charged for muder 1 in Maryland for shooting a home intruder who had a knife. He didn't flee his house so he's charged with murder 1. That is text book definition of bullshit.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305559]sure, let's not relate that to the size of our population or anything, and ignore the fact that it didn't just dwindle mass shootings. it (minus a few incidents were no more than 3-5 where killed, and very very few and far between) stopped them dead.[/QUOTE]
You have to keep in mind we're an island too, it's harder to smuggle stuff into Australia purely because of that. But in Americas case they're bordered with both Canada and Mexico.
[editline]13th December 2015[/editline]
Not saying that gun control didn't work for us, all i'm saying is I doubt it'd have the same effect in America.
If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49307983]The entire concept behind the 2nd amendment is hilariously childish and stupid. "The government can't fuck up because if they do we got our guns to shoot them back in line" is idiotic and the concept hasn't worked for centuries (if ever). At this point it's practically just a ploy to keep people in line because they're still firmly clinging onto the belief that having a gun somehow gives them some form of relevancy and somehow acts as a safeguard to their liberties.[/QUOTE]
There have been multiple occasions in the united states in which people have taken up arms in rebellion against government policy.
In 1859 an abolitionist named John Brown raided a federal armory with the intent of stealing weaponry to distribute among slaves and begin a slave uprising against their owners. He failed and was eventually captured and convicted of treason.
Even earlier in 1786 and 1787, Shays' rebellion formed from disgruntled farmers whom experienced land seizure and bankruptcy due to the failures of the articles of confederation (essentially the first laws of the land). The rebels attempted to raid Springfield armory but were defeated by local militia. This rebellion was influential in debates surrounding the reform of the articles of confederation and may have had significant impact on the content of the constitution. It also may have played a large factor in George Washington becoming the first president.
Yet another rebellion took place in 1791 called the Whiskey Rebellion. A tax on distilled beverages was imposed to help pay off the war debt accumulated during the Revolutionary War, and farmers viewed this as taxation without local representation. Furious, they decided to storm the tax collector's home. George Washington sent 13,000 troops but the rebels left before they could arrive. This rebellion played a considerable role in the formation of political parties in the United States, and the distilled beverages tax was repealed in 1801 by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party.
Finally, there was a battle between strikers and Pinkerton Detective Agency's agents at the Homestead Steel Works in 1892. The steel works implemented various technologies and managed to greatly increase the speed of production, but they also greatly expanded their workforce with low-skill labor. Other more highly-skilled workers at the steel works were upset that their historic positions at the steel works were being overtaken by cheap and low-skill labor. The labor union conceived a plan to hold a strike at the plant in order to bargain for a wage increase, but Pinkerton agents were called in to break the strike. The strikers knew of their plan, so they armed themselves and waited for Pinkerton barges to attempt to disembark. When the barges began to creep toward the plant, the strikers opened fire and the Pinkerton agents withdrew until state militia could break up the strike. This armed resistance resulted in an increase in deunionization efforts in the United states.
The second amendment's use as a tool of rebellion has had a profound impact on policy in the United States, and it is clear that certain rights can be maintained through armed rebellion. The "whiskey" tax might not have been repealed if farmers had not rebelled against it, and the formation of political parties can owe some of itself to this uprising. If Shays' rebellion had not happened, people might not have realized how direly the Articles needed to be reformed. In other words, the entire existence of the constitution as we know it might be different had that rebellion not have happened.
[editline]13th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49308169]If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.[/QUOTE]
Moving requires you to find a new home that is reasonably priced, it requires you to find a new job and quit your existing job and position, and it might even cause you to break certain relationships and friendships you've made in that local area. That's simply not a feasible answer for most people, especially those whom struggle to make ends meet. Let me put it this way: A $300 handgun is less expensive than a $20,000 dollar house or a loan.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49308169]If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.[/QUOTE]
Someone could break into your home no matter where you live, "a nice area" is no real garuntee.
I swear to god, half of the people in any of these gun debate threads dont bother reading anything anybody says that would even halfway bother explaining the logistic nightmare of removing guns from the United States or why its a terrible fucking idea to begin with.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;49308169]If you need a gun to protect yourself in the area you live in then you should probably move.[/QUOTE]
Yeah man I totally had the funds to move it's not like I was living in the cheapest part of town for a reason or anything like that. It was literally the only place I could afford. I ate ramen for a bit and sold my xbox, netting 400 dollars for an AK-variant rifle. Much cheaper than the 300+ more dollars a month every other place was.
Life is hard on some people. We can't all just get up and move whenever we want.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49308337]I swear to god, half of the people in any of these gun debate threads dont bother reading anything anybody says that would even halfway bother explaining the logistic nightmare of removing guns from the United States or why its a terrible fucking idea to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I tend to find that gun control advocates never bother to substantiate their claims or address criticism that challenges their points of view. I'd be really happy to see them do either of those things when they debate.
I'd say I'm pro-gun and I can honestly never see the US abolishing guns entirely
but I still don't see why you /wouldn't/ want more gun control in the form of regulation and background checks. The excuse of saying that criminals can just buy guns illegally and regulation only harms legitimate consumers feels like a bit of a cop-out. I see no reason as to why you wouldn't want to at least [I]try [/I]and curb gun availability to those who are not suited to own weapons.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49308371]I'd say I'm pro-gun and I can honestly never see the US abolishing guns entirely
but I still don't see why you /wouldn't/ want more gun control in the form of regulation and background checks. The excuse of saying that criminals can just buy guns illegally and regulation only harms legitimate consumers feels like a bit of a cop-out. I see no reason as to why you wouldn't want to at least [I]try [/I]and curb gun availability to those who are not suited to own weapons.[/QUOTE]
Regulation in the form of actually checking who's buying your firearms? Good.
Shit like 30 days to get one if there was a violent incident in your home? Bad.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49308371]I'd say I'm pro-gun and I can honestly never see the US abolishing guns entirely
but I still don't see why you /wouldn't/ want more gun control in the form of regulation and background checks. The excuse of saying that criminals can just buy guns illegally and regulation only harms legitimate consumers feels like a bit of a cop-out. I see no reason as to why you wouldn't want to at least [I]try [/I]and curb gun availability to those who are not suited to own weapons.[/QUOTE]
We do try, but there are some obstacles and it's not entirely certain that these attempts do have any appreciable effect on violent gun crime. For example, information about mental health cannot be released to an FFL due to laws concerning patient confidentiality. We also know that violent crime in general is on the decline currently and not just gun crime.
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final[/url]
It's not that we never attempt to curb gun crime, we've been trying for years with background checks, waiting periods, restriction of certain types of firearms, magazine size restrictions, etc.
Gun crime and violent crime in general is on the decline, but it cannot be proven that gun control has been a contributing factor since all violent crime is declining.
"People don't need guns for anything!"
What about fucking farmers?
They do need their guns.
Trying to take away all the guns will never happen so think of a better solution
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49308490]"People don't need guns for anything!"
What about fucking farmers?
They do need their guns.
Trying to take away all the guns will never happen so think of a better solution[/QUOTE]
Isn't that a moot point though as in the UK farmers are allowed to own a shotgun to protect their livestock, as long as they have a licence.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305513]kurt russell is cool, so this is a big shame. the fact of the matter is that gun control works
you can come up with excuses all day long about 'only criminals will have guns' or 'people will make their own guns'
the fact of the matter is that we had a huge mass shooting in 1996. we outlawed guns, and it hasn't happened again in all the years since.
sorry america.
kurt's argument is that 'they can kill people with other things if we outlaw guns', which is true. of course anybody can kill anybody with anything
but guns make it 10x easier and more efficient to do so. and yes, they can make bombs. but making a bomb is a lot harder than getting a gun. and the harder something is, the riskier and longer it takes, and the more parts they have to source, which allows more time and more ways for them to be tracked and get caught.[/QUOTE]
Tell me more about Australia and how its like the USA and if we just outlaw guns it will be fine.
Dude, you gotta go in front of fucking congress or some shit, seems like you figured out Americas gun problem. I can see it now "Rusty100 Nobel peace prize winner for his forum posts on Australian gun control and how its exactly like the USA and fixed everything"
[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;49308541]Isn't that a moot point though as in the UK farmers are allowed to own a shotgun to protect their livestock, as long as they have a licence.[/QUOTE]
I'm responding to the utterly absurd argument that no one needs guns.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305513]kurt russell is cool, so this is a big shame. the fact of the matter is that gun control works
you can come up with excuses all day long about 'only criminals will have guns' or 'people will make their own guns'
the fact of the matter is that we had a huge mass shooting in 1996. we outlawed guns, and it hasn't happened again in all the years since.
sorry america.
kurt's argument is that 'they can kill people with other things if we outlaw guns', which is true. of course anybody can kill anybody with anything
but guns make it 10x easier and more efficient to do so. and yes, they can make bombs. but making a bomb is a lot harder than getting a gun. and the harder something is, the riskier and longer it takes, and the more parts they have to source, which allows more time and more ways for them to be tracked and get caught.[/QUOTE]
i agree with everything else you said but an AWB would be a terrible way to start de-arming the US, if it ever becomes feasible it'll be as the very last action after probably decades of specified gun legislation, it would just waste time and aggravate the NRA if you started with it and then worked backwards
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
