Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 22 NEXT
 

senordesol:

Moth_Monk:

senordesol:

No, that is not the 'ONLY' reason.

Another reason is that the federalists would not sign the Constitution without certain provisions made with regard to limiting the power of government. The right to bear arms was one of those provisions, a provision upheld by the highest court in the land time and again.

Unless you're suggesting (and hopefully have proof) that the Supreme Court is on the take, then: NO, that is not the only reason.

Okay I can accept that. But it is the main reason, obviously.

That's right, it being a civil right is the main reason.

No. It's all about money dear boy. No need to delude yourself with fanciful romantic notions like that.

The reason it is a "right" (meaningless term, I quite like this commentary on the idea:

) is because they can make money from it. If the best quality heroin could be produced in the US you can be damn sure that would be a "civil right" as well....

farson135:

Alexnader:
snip

You know what else he said in those videos? It is hard to import. He is using an older model Mini-14. The older versions suck (the modern versions do as well but they are at least more accurate). What he said was that importation is extremely difficult. Because of that buying them is expensive and you get far lower quality than you get in the US.

snip

You are using the numbers from the cities. There are 5,000 people in my area. Less than 1/100th of 1% of my areas population is enough to control the pig population. In other words about 30 people. Are you saying you cannot find 30 people to hunt pigs in an area of about a hundred square miles? If so, then the pig population is irrelevant there anyway.

You also have a culture of shooting anything that moves, one that has largely been replaced by drunkenness in rural Australia.

Yo, fletch_talon are you going to call this guy an elitist? I doubt it.

Just forgive me if I snort in derision at your notion of your state's wide open prairie when our country is about 80% the size of your entire country.

Open prairie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

snip

You are mixing terms. An assault rifle is not the same thing as an assault weapon.

Anyway, the ability to rapidly put out shots is necessary to take down large groups of pigs.

As a side note all the justifications for widespread gun ownership fall flat when it comes to automatics.

None of my firearms are automatics.

You my friend are quibbling and that's fair enough given the inaccuracies in my post, however that does not mean you've won the main point of contention which is that Australia is just too damn big. You don't seem to be getting it so I've made you a picture.

This is a map of Australia showing human population density, overlayed on Queensland is a colour code indicating pig population density/type. (Map sources below) For humans, the darker the more dense. For pigs yellow is "Occasional/Widespread", orange is "Common/Widespread" (this looks more like salmon pink due to photoshop opacity changes) and red is "Abundant/Widespread". I've included your state mostly for intuitive comparison as the scales are judged by eye based on your state being 875 miles wide at its widest which I got off answers.com so don't trust that too much at all.

Map Interpretation

This is a very busy and confusing image so lets do a tour from left to right of QLD. Starting at the border it's mostly yellow here with splotches of red, in the middle you can see a blob of grey corresponding to "0.1-1 people per square km". That's 10-100 people per 100 square kilometers or 25.8-258 people per 100 square miles. That blob is surrounded by a lighter grey which is "Less than 0.1 people per square kilometer". For the entire Western part of the state we'd be hard pressed to find 30 people per 100 square miles, let alone 30 hunters. As we press East we can see occasional blobs of "0.1 people per square kilometer" amongst a veritable lake of sweet fanny adams. If you look up towards the red peninsula you'll see almost all of it matches the human density of Western QLD. That peninsula has the highest density of pigs in the country.

Once we get to the centre of the state it becomes entirely "0.1/sqkm" with a single blotch of "1-10 people" which would give us about 2580 people per 100 square miles in the best case. Finally on the East coast it becomes "1-10" with spatterings of large towns and cities so relatively small you can barely make them out.

Contrasting this with your state we see that you have occasional patches of "< 1/ square mile" with most of it being "1-10 / square mile" or "0.6-6.25 / square kilometer".

So basically most of your state has a population density approximately an order of 10 higher than most of Queensland.

Pig Density Source
Australia People Density

Furthermore read this document which claims that ground shooting is inherently very much a secondary means of population control due to factors beyond the hunter's control (pigs are sneaky) and is far behind aerial shooting (done by professionals with semi automatics), trapping and poisoning. If valid this presents another blow to your claim that Australia would have much less of a pig problem if we had more relaxed gun laws.

In response to your secondary points

I'm allowed to be elitist to rural people in my country when talking to a foreigner because that's how patriotism works.

Your state with your cowboys were the ones harping on about open prairies, not my fault it's a stereotype. Also you could well live in a pretty area so congrats.

I don't care how many automatics you own, I'm trying to be something that was once known as "on topic" but has long been lost to us. The point is they may be tightly regulated but they're not illegal for civilians in America and that seems quite crazy to me. In Australia only collectors can have them provided they have been permanently disabled.

thaluikhain:

Alexnader:
True blue mate, the pigs need to be dealt with. However I don't think the blokes up in Jigalong need assault weapons and support assault weapons to do it. We don't need an assault rifle with 200 round drum capacity to drop a few pigs, though if we had a mind to turn them into goop it could be useful. Mind you the shooters and fishers party would probably push for anti materiel rifles if they thought they could get away with it but the point is gun dissemination is unnecessary to conservation.

As a side note all the justifications for widespread gun ownership fall flat when it comes to automatics. A young student doesn't pack an assault rifle to uni each day to protect herself from rapists. A hunter doesn't need to suppress a buck so that his partner can flank the buck's position. This is tangential I know but it's the one form of gun restrictions I think the US really does need.

I was agreeing with you up until this bit.

Automatic weapons, including assault rifles, are very heavily restricted in the US, you can't get ones that weren't registered before 1986. Assault weapon is a stupid term, and they are heavily restricted in the parts that use that definition. You don't get 200 capacity drum mags, though I know that was hyperbole.

The AR-15 mentioned by farson is a semi-automatic rifle, not an assault rifle. They are legal in Australia, but very rare. They happen to be the rifle used in both the Aurora and Port Arthur massacres, BTW.

Only occupational shooters can have working semi automatic weapons in Australia. As for the automatic weapon restrictions, it all seems to check out but what I can't understand is why a news report in Australia on one of the few reputable channels had video implying that Americans were purchasing modern looking assault rifles at some gunshow somewhere.

Alexnader:
Only occupational shooters can have working semi automatic weapons in Australia. As for the automatic weapon restrictions, it all seems to check out but what I can't understand is why a news report in Australia on one of the few reputable channels had video implying that Americans were purchasing modern looking assault rifles at some gunshow somewhere.

Hmmm...my first thought is they might have been semi-auto civilian versions of military assault rifles. Those are common enough, the AR-15 is one, for example. They look almost identical to the military ones, just with a slight modification of the mechanism to remove selective fire capacity.

Alternatively...well, the Steyr AUG or the L85 are both very modern looking, but had been developed in time to be registered before 1986 (though AFAIK, the L85s weren't made privaately available).

I've always assumed we've had more deaths by firearms and gun crime because we (Americans) are just a great deal more violent and stupid than, say, some other places on the planet. It's just our culture. Our dumb, dumb culture.

thaluikhain:
Hmmm...my first thought is they might have been semi-auto civilian versions of military assault rifles. Those are common enough, the AR-15 is one, for example. They look almost identical to the military ones, just with a slight modification of the mechanism to remove selective fire capacity.

A question for somebody who knows more about guns. How did the branch Davidians modify the civilian versions of the AR-15 to include fully automatic fire?

Where the rifles different then and it was easier to restore the full functionality or would it take a really skilled gunsmith?

J Tyran:

A question for somebody who knows more about guns. How did the branch Davidians modify the civilian versions of the AR-15 to include fully automatic fire?

Where the rifles different then and it was easier to restore the full functionality or would it take a really skilled gunsmith?

Technically, it doesn't take a lot of expertise to take most semi-automatic weapons and make them run on full-auto.

However.

The slightest mistake in that process and you typically wind up with a weapon that will fire full-auto... whether you want it to or not. A tiny bit too much off the wrong part, or wrong tension on a given spring, and the gun will run away whenever the trigger is pulled.

So yeah, it'll fire full auto. It'll also dump the magazine ever time you pull the trigger, and if you screwed up badly enough, that can have all kinds of unpleasant secondary effects.

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Actually you're terrible at math.

The homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).

The rate of rape is 24.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 28.6 per 100,000 people for the US.

I always knew that stupid imperial system you had made you bad at math.

That said its too late to ban guns in the USA. You're not an island so regulation is hard and there are guns EVERYWHERE in your society already. A "hand in" wouldn't work. Its safer to leave things how they are. England prevents a lot of criminals from getting guns by regulating our ocean borders, thus guns are fucking expensive EVEN if you have the right connections and EVEN if they can evade border control and guards and such. Our society didnt have to be taken down to remove guns and put back together again. It was a preventative measure. The USA would have to be overhauled, economically as well. As such its far safer to leave guns in american hands.

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

Although it only occurred to me after reading some of the pro-gun Americans responses in comments sections/threads to you-know-what

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

What about Hunting? Or for Sport? Two major industries that people in America love to do. We love to hunt. We love to show who is a better shot, whether it be Bow and Arrow or a gun and bullet. Hundreds of Millions are made in this lucrative business.

Also: alcohol is far more dangerous than a gun in America (or hell, any country). If you want to bitch about something being dangerous? Blame alcohol.

Alexnader:
however that does not mean you've won the main point of contention which is that Australia is just too damn big.

1/100th of 1% of an area with 5,000 people was enough to effectively control the pig population. That is about 30 people. Once again, if you cannot find 30 people in an area of about 100 square miles, then the pigs are irrelevant anyway.

Furthermore read this document which claims that ground shooting is inherently very much a secondary means of population control due to factors beyond the hunter's control (pigs are sneaky) and is far behind aerial shooting (done by professionals with semi automatics), trapping and poisoning. If valid this presents another blow to your claim that Australia would have much less of a pig problem if we had more relaxed gun laws.

Actually I have done aerial hunting and it is not effective. Pigs are sneaky, they do not stick around when helicopters start flying over. Which is why the paper said that it is only valuable when hunting large numbers of pigs.

BTW you think poisoning is a good idea? You realize that things eat the pigs once they die, and when they die their bodies decompose and the fluids go where (takes finger and points down)?

Your state with your cowboys were the ones harping on about open prairies, not my fault it's a stereotype. Also you could well live in a pretty area so congrats.

YOU accuse me of not knowing about your country and you talk about my country in the form of stereotypes.

I don't care how many automatics you own, I'm trying to be something that was once known as "on topic" but has long been lost to us. The point is they may be tightly regulated but they're not illegal for civilians in America and that seems quite crazy to me. In Australia only collectors can have them provided they have been permanently disabled.

There has never been a crime committed with a legally owned Class III Firearm by a civilian in American history. I do not see the problem.

J Tyran:
A question for somebody who knows more about guns. How did the branch Davidians modify the civilian versions of the AR-15 to include fully automatic fire?

They used a drop in conversion kit.

Where the rifles different then and it was easier to restore the full functionality or would it take a really skilled gunsmith?

It was a premade conversion so all you have to do is take out the conversion kit and replace it with the old kit.

BiscuitTrouser:

The homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).

The rate of rape is 24.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 28.6 per 100,000 people for the US.

And while I don't necessarily agree that more guns = less violent crime, it's important to note that the overall violent crime rate in the United States is substantially lower.

The violent crime rate for the US was around 429 per 100,000 people in 2009.
The violent crime rate for the UK was around 1550 per 100,000 people in 2009.

Raesvelg:

BiscuitTrouser:

The homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).

The rate of rape is 24.1 per 100,000 for the UK and 28.6 per 100,000 people for the US.

And while I don't necessarily agree that more guns = less violent crime, it's important to note that the overall violent crime rate in the United States is substantially lower.

The violent crime rate for the US was around 429 per 100,000 people in 2009.
The violent crime rate for the UK was around 1550 per 100,000 people in 2009.

Cant dispute that. However.

In the US you are FOUR times as likely to be murdered than in the UK.

In the UK you are 3 times as likely to be assaulted than in the US.

Id rather be assaulted than murdered. You're more likely to survive your violent crime in England apparently. Almost 4 times as likely. But the downside is theres more likely to be one.

Capitano Segnaposto:
If you want to bitch about something being dangerous? Blame alcohol.

Lol. I know alcohol is dangerous, I've seen the effects of it first hand. If I had things my way alcohol would be illegal as well.

BiscuitTrouser:

Id rather be assaulted than murdered. You're more likely to survive your violent crime in England apparently. Almost 4 times as likely. But the downside is theres more likely to be one.

Yes well, you Brits just fall into the category we Americans like to refer to as "enthusiastic amateurs".

In all seriousness though, I expect most crime statistics generally reflect more of culture than gun ownership. And we have some extremely violent sub-cultures in the United States, sadly.

The UK homicide rate, for example, has been more-or-less constant for the past few decades, despite an ever-tightening set of regulations on firearm ownership. It's just now getting back down to the level it was at before the most draconian of the regulations began to be implemented, oddly enough.

Moth_Monk:
Yep this thread had to get posted.

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

For most of them I think it's a small penis thing =(

As a British person myself, I don't agree with the illegality of guns. All it does is prevent people who care about the law and operate under the law from obtaining a gun; criminals who have contacts and friends will not need to heed the law, and hence the irregularity of a gun means that any criminal means that any encounter with a gun in Britain typically means you'll be at a disadvantage. Thugs resort to carrying knives now; which can be just as deadly, and more painful by several orders of magnitude.

And then there's the angle that America's second amendment is based on. If the people of a nation do not believe the Government is not doing it's job properly and abusing it's powers then they should revolt. Unfortunately, the Government having a legal monopoly on weapons would mean that any sort of revolt will be imposable.

I believe in people being free to do whatever they want; and yes, some people abuse their freedom. Perhaps there may be an increase in harm (note there is yet to be found any empirical evidence that shows that there is a link between gun ownership and violent crime rates), but the freedom to choose, defend oneself, and do whatever the hell one likes as long as they harm no other is something I think is a crucial thing any person should have.

I'll use the same reason my brother has. If guns are made illegal, the good, law-abiding citizens will have to get rid of them. But the bad, non-law-abiding citizens that will be committing the crimes won't. It can't be stopped and I think they are good for self-defense. Plus, they are really fun to go out and target shoot.

Fun experiment:

replace the word 'guns' with 'drugs'
watch everyone's opinion on the merits of control suddenly reverse.

Johnson McGee:
Fun experiment:

replace the word 'guns' with 'drugs'
watch everyone's opinion on the merits of control suddenly reverse.

Except for mine! Whooo, make all drugs legal, for the win!

Hazy992:

krazykidd:
snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source

The problem with these statistics, is that it can also be cultural difference. America is very different country with different problems and stress.

OT: I love guns as an american, and if they were illegal, well as other said, im sure criminals would find a way to get them. And if not, knives can never be illegal, and knives hurt too.... a lot actually...

Yes making guns again the law will mean no one has a gun just like making pot illegal will mean no one has pot... and yet it is illegal and ever one i know that wants it has it.

I know what you are thinking "but gun are different for (inset magical reason here)" well no to be honest they are not, many more people are killed with guns that are illegal owned than one that are legally owned, clearly this suggest that the illegality of guns does not make a determined criminal less likely to have one.

But forget that lets pretend that it did. You are a killer you want someone dead you can not use a gun, so you give up... wait of course not you still kill the people that is you sole intent the fact that you do not have a gun is absolutely irrelevant. Franky if i wanted a target dead poison is the way I would go. Basic homemade equipment can with even simple knowledge of chemistry make poisons from items that will raise no red flags. I could with not all to much effort find a huge amount of hemlock or another poisonous plant and feed it to just about any victim I want if i had any kind of food outlet and this is just one of the more unlikely ways to kill people. Millions more exist that are even simpler and easier.

Here in the states where we broke away from your corrupt Monarchy that bowed to the bankers and allowed Parliament to tax the crap out of the states we reserve the right to use force to defend ourselves against any aggressor both foreign and domestic.

For others though guns are a tool used on a farm to protect their animals on their ranches and without these rifles they would be unable to ensure the safety of the family or animals from wolves, coyotes, Raccoons, Bears, Mountain Lions, and various other dangerous beasts that inhabit these lands.

If you take away guns from regular people criminals will not disarm and it will be chaos. Plus have you see what our government is doing. They're just two steps away from declaring the UNITED STATES a police state.

Moth_Monk:
The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US.

You also import a lot more of your guns than you manufacture, and have an easier time with border control efforts to keep guns out. Both of these factors make bans on guns more plausible.

Hazy992:
Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

The U.S. is not the UK, geographically or socially.

Comparing the outcomes of a policy between the two is logically impossible with a single data point.

snake4769:

Hazy992:

krazykidd:
snip

Well according to Wikipedia the homicide rate for the UK is lower (1.23 per 100,000 people) compared to the US (4.8 per 100,000 people)

Source

The problem with these statistics, is that it can also be cultural difference. America is very different country with different problems and stress.

I'm not saying why this difference has occurred I'm just pointing out that there is a difference.

Moth_Monk:

The question is this: I live in the UK, where firearms are illegal, even the police do not have them, and the rate of gun crime is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than gun crime in the US. I have not even heard what a gun shot sounds like outside of TV and video games - think of that. With this being a fact, how can you people who are pro-guns; that don't like the idea of guns being made illegal, even rationalise why it would be a bad thing?

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :-)

I'm not a huge gun advocate or anything, but I do need to point out something. I live in Vermont, a state with some of the most archaic gun control laws in the nation. I grew up target shooting with my BB gun, and then moved on to a .22 and an old 32 special. Gun Cabinets are probably more common then dishwashers, and I hear gunshots every year around deer season. But I have never heard a gun that was shot in anger. I can't name the last example of a shooting death in my state. Statistically, hunting and shooting are probably safer then high school athletics. Also, target shooting is an enjoyable, enriching, FUN hobby that I have many friends who dedicate massive amounts of time to. Also, Venison is delicious.

You know how irritating it is when people assume a causal link between video games and violence? A similar complaint can be made linking legal gun ownership and the actions of criminals. Now I am for reasonable gun control laws, but if you look at the statistics of what influence harsher or more lenient gun control laws have on crime, you come up with extraordinarily little on either side. You don't hear this very often because neither side likes to admit it. Also the idea that if everyone has a gun, this would provide a strong disincentive to crime is a valid point that is at least worth arguing. Risk of death makes a number of minor crimes seems less profitable. The point is that Gun Control may or may not be a good idea in some certain quantity, but having a belief on either side of the issue can be perfectly reasonable. The correct policy decision will be meeting half way on a variety of balanced, nuanced discussions of a wide variety of facets of a very complicated issue. That discussion may or may not be happening in the background behind all the screaming.

Yeah banning guns will work just as well as banning drugs... oh wait that didn't work did it lol

Firearms aren't necessarily a bad thing, Shooting is an interesting sport which also happens to be olympic sport (not that snipers ever enter it) Hunting is also popular, the question really is, is it necessary? In Australia, we had a brutal massacre in a southern tourist city, 35 people were killed and 23 wounded he was using an AR-15 Rifle, plenty of children amoung the dead. After the incident, we tightened our grip on weapons laws to prevent caes like this, ever since we havent had any major massacres. Bolt Action Rifles are still in common use, but semi-automatic weapons are banned if you do not have a military/police liscence. its not really the weapons, its what type of weapon, and more importantly who you give the weapon to. Firarms shouldnt be outright banned, but the fact that you can own an assualt rifle in the US, a civillian should not be able to posess that firepower. Thats just my opinion, though I will mention one thing, just becuase such weapons are illeagal, there is still a black market out west, sadly gangs seem to be getting these kinds of weapons too often

matrix3509:

Oh Christ. Yes they make it harder for the average joe to get a gun, BECAUSE HE WILL BE THE ONLY PERSON AFFECTED BY THE GUN BAN. Criminals are NOT affected by gun bans, AT ALL.

Yes they are. Please don't lie. Unless you're excluding most criminals from the term "criminal," most criminals really are average joes. Do you truly believe that all the bad things in the world transpire because of hardcore gangbangers and Joker wannabes? Because that's about the only way that the statement "Criminals are NOT affect by gun bans, AT ALL" would ring true. AT ALL.

Gam3rzulu:
Firearms aren't necessarily a bad thing, Shooting is an interesting sport which also happens to be olympic sport (not that snipers ever enter it) Hunting is also popular, the question really is, is it necessary? In Australia, we had a brutal massacre in a southern tourist city, 35 people were killed and 23 wounded he was using an AR-15 Rifle, plenty of children amoung the dead. After the incident, we tightened our grip on weapons laws to prevent caes like this, ever since we havent had any major massacres. Bolt Action Rifles are still in common use, but semi-automatic weapons are banned if you do not have a military/police liscence. its not really the weapons, its what type of weapon, and more importantly who you give the weapon to. Firarms shouldnt be outright banned, but the fact that you can own an assualt rifle in the US, a civillian should not be able to posess that firepower. Thats just my opinion, though I will mention one thing, just becuase such weapons are illeagal, there is still a black market out west, sadly gangs seem to be getting these kinds of weapons too often

i seem to remember that shooting didn't a mentally handicapped man with an iq of 66 get blamed interrogate and thrown in jail without a trial

also in our constitution we have the second amendment that was written to prevent the government from preventing us form having guns this is a form of keeping the government in check so if the government ever over stepped its boundaries the citizens would be able to over throw it (i shit you not read up on it) also a semi auto is not an assault rifle assault rifle implies select fire capability which you do not have on civilian "assault weapons"

Gam3rzulu:
Firearms aren't necessarily a bad thing, Shooting is an interesting sport which also happens to be olympic sport (not that snipers ever enter it) Hunting is also popular, the question really is, is it necessary? In Australia, we had a brutal massacre in a southern tourist city, 35 people were killed and 23 wounded he was using an AR-15 Rifle, plenty of children amoung the dead. After the incident, we tightened our grip on weapons laws to prevent caes like this, ever since we havent had any major massacres. Bolt Action Rifles are still in common use, but semi-automatic weapons are banned if you do not have a military/police liscence. its not really the weapons, its what type of weapon, and more importantly who you give the weapon to. Firarms shouldnt be outright banned, but the fact that you can own an assualt rifle in the US, a civillian should not be able to posess that firepower. Thats just my opinion, though I will mention one thing, just becuase such weapons are illeagal, there is still a black market out west, sadly gangs seem to be getting these kinds of weapons too often

All firearms are banned in Australia without a licence, it's just that some licences are easier to get than others.

Only assault rifles registered before 1986 can be legally owned by US civilians, and those are in short supply.

hulksmashley:
Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous[1], are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

[1] If someone breaks into your home, unless you have lots of long hallways, a close range weapon like a bat or a knife (or pepper spray, or a taser, or a bean-bag gun, or a fist) are probably going to be more effective, and have a lower risk of misfiring and killing your house-mate/wife/kid who is ten metres away trying to stay out of the fray.

gufftroad:
i seem to remember that shooting didn't a mentally handicapped man with an iq of 66 get blamed interrogate and thrown in jail without a trial

No, he got a trial. Open and shut case, though, but Australia can't gaol people without a trial.

He was severely mentally handicapped, yeah.

Biosophilogical:

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous)

One problem sunshine; I HAVE TO GET CLOSE.

Why should I?

In a close confrontation, I'm DEAD. Dead as fried chicken. I'm small, have a leg that barely works, and you're demanding I be required to close in on an assailant to defend myself? Forget that.

and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

It's about control over the weapon, not marksmanship. You can be an olympic sharpshooter and still be worthless in a violent situation. Combat marksmanship =/= range shooting.

Biosophilogical:

hulksmashley:
Because many people enjoy shooting orange clay disks and/or animals as an fun outdoor activity and we don't want it made illegal. Also many people view guns as collector items.

Also because if some guy breaks into my house, I want to be able to stop him from attacking me.

Those are all arguments for recreational guns, or for home-only weapons. I, for one, think that sporting guns (hunting rifles, for instance) are perfectly fine, insofar as they stay in approved hunting regions, or are unloaded (a gun is just a hunk of metal if you ain't got no bullets!). And guns in the home, while probably superfluous[1], are at least understandable (though due to their range, they actually put your neighbours at risk unless you live on a large property) but should never be taken from your private property (unless safely contained away from ammunition), because the moment you enter the public sector, you are putting everyone else in unnecessary risk, in a place that they should be safe to travel. On top of which, should you ever have reason to use it in a public place, unless you are alone at night, every shot you fire in 'self-defense' is putting anyone and everyone nearby at risk (and unless they are the ones putting you at risk in the first place, you have no right to do that to them).

So yeah, 'self-defense' doesn't really cut it, because while you have the right to defend yourself, you don't have the right to put other people at risk doing so (hence why non-lethal or close-range alternatives are better/more appropriate, and guns are long-range and VERY dangerous), and in the hands of anyone who isn't an expert marksman, they're a risk to innocent bystanders.

i keep several loaded weapons in my house i have a serious tweeker problem in my neighborhood and have had them break into my garage twice now

and up untill very recently i open carried everywhere for those unfamiliar open carry is having an unloaded pistol in a holster in plain sight my guns with the exception of my milsurp have never hurt anyone and as long as i own them never will banning semi auto rifles would make many many guns like the M1Garand M1A SKS and others illegal yet these don't fall into the evil assault rifle category but they function the same way

[1] If someone breaks into your home, unless you have lots of long hallways, a close range weapon like a bat or a knife (or pepper spray, or a taser, or a bean-bag gun, or a fist) are probably going to be more effective, and have a lower risk of misfiring and killing your house-mate/wife/kid who is ten metres away trying to stay out of the fray.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked