So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 17 NEXT
 

TechNoFear:

Not G. Ivingname:
Microstamping is expensive,

Between US$0.50 to US$8 per firearm is not exactly 'expensive'.

That is NOTHING compared to the cost of a car airbag, ABS, etc.

That is nothing compared to the ~US$40,000 in just medical expenses each of the over 100,000 gunshot wounds per year cost the US.

Actually, yes it does compare. According to this source ( http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-right-to-bear-arms-over-10800000-guns-sold-in-the-usa-in-2011_01212012 ) there have been 10.8 million guns sold in 2011. If we assume the average cost of micro stamping is around 3.7 that comes out to be around 39.9 million dollars spent. And that is going just on your number. Does that bring in the costs of buying the expensive equipment and the complete redesign of all gun manufacturing? The costs of the new testing of every, single, gun? What about the around 300 million legally owned firearms in private hands? Where is the 1.1 BILLION dollars to microstamp each and every one of them?

Not G. Ivingname:
unreliable (they wear out after 2,500 rounds,

Only the least reliable type of microstamp wear out at this rate, many microstamps (ie ceramic) last for well over 50,000 rounds and are very hard to tamper with (as they are placed on multiple points and microscopic).

I have tried and failed to get any information on ceramic microstamping, although looking up the substance itself revealed a problem with the substance. It is VERY hard, but it also VERY brittle, so it is more liable for damage if you drop it or something. If you could give a source so I can read up on them.

Not G. Ivingname:
and can be easily abused

We do not expect air bags and seat belts to save 100% of lives in all accidents, but still legislate that these safety equipment is required.

We do not expect DNA, fingerprinting etc to solve all crimes, but still these technologies are useful and worth the expense.

It is much, much harder to plant false fingerprints on a crime scene or clean them away then it is to pick up and drop bullet cases.

Also, do you have any evidence that microstamping would reduce crime or increase police ability to catch criminals?

Microstamping is an effective deterent to straw sales.

Citation needed.

Microstamping is law already in California and is proposed in other states.

Not until at least two gun companies have the technology and means to microstamp. Only one currently does.

TechNoFear:

Kopikatsu:
it's unconstitutional in the US to make a retroactive law.

Funny how the US convicted an Australia citizen David Hicks using retroactive laws...

The US court of appeals ruled his conviction invalid for just that reason.

Kopikatsu:

If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it. But attacking guns that are very rarely used in crimes, such as longguns, then yeah, they're making it seem like they just want to take everything away.

At the moment they're an easy target as people who are apathetic to guns are now asking "why DO we have those?" and it works as a starting ground. People are right in saying that a total gun ban wouldn't work, you can't ban all guns overnight but you can ban them piecemeal. You can't ban handguns outright because they are the most common, if someone goes to buy their first gun do they buy a little handgun or an AR-15? So you don't go for the big fish right away, you take out the little one at the edges; people who are pro-gun to a small degree (i.e. they like having a pistol for the house but nothing more) aren't going to like you taking their gun but they won't care so much about assault weapons that they might not be as keen on and can be easily persuaded are unnecessary.

So that's what gun control has to be, a long game of picking off things bit by bit until only the essentials are left. For example in Britain it took about 100 years to go from lots of guns to near zero, rifles were banned (iirc) at the turn of the 20th century, shotguns in the 70's[1] and handguns only got banned 15-16 years ago.

American gun control could be similar; Today no assault weapons, next year increased background checks for rifles, 5 years same for all guns, 15 years rifles/shotguns require hunting/agriculture/sport licence, 25 years all guns require a reason, 40 years self defence no longer a valid reason, 50 years alter the definition of 'militia' to restrict who is applicable, 70 years pistols heavily restricted, 100 years pistols banned.

Change the time period around however you like, just did it to end in 100 years.

And the thing is nobody[2] would complain when pistols are banned because after a century of a fading gun culture nobody would care. That's what happened in Britain, your 2nd amendment is based off British law of the time but today if they asked if we wanted guns back I doubt even 25% would say yes, I can think of only one British guy that has publicly advocated bringing guns back and he's a nobody here.

[1] you can still get both of these guns, it's just much harder to than before
[2] any decent sized group

Kopikatsu:
If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it..

Institute a total weapon ban, with exceptions possible, only after permit, which can only be obtained with a clean background, safe storage, a psychiatric report which shows no signs of being dangerously unstable, such as a belief that burglars should be murdered, and require a valid reason in the form of an already existing hunting permit or sports shooting membership, with any and all other reasons being invalidated. Further legislate that gun owners who use their weapon for any other purpose than the purpose for which the permit was issued, are automatically assigned a mandatory 50% increase of their sentence as well as one year of unconditional prison sentence, to deter any use for violence or intimidation purposes.

Also make it so that these permits can only be used to obtain non-automated weapons, and no handguns for hunting permit-based requests.


You're welcome.

Karma168:
40 years self defence no longer a valid reason

No police. No firearms.

Better pray that knives are enough to keep my still crippled, but now 70 plus year old ass alive if I'm still around by then.

Blablahb:

Kopikatsu:
If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it..

Institute a total weapon ban, with exceptions possible, only after permit, which can only be obtained with a clean background, safe storage, a psychiatric report which shows no signs of being dangerously unstable, such as a belief that burglars should be murdered, and require a valid reason in the form of an already existing hunting permit or sports shooting membership, with any and all other reasons being invalidated. Further legislate that gun owners who use their weapon for any other purpose than the purpose for which the permit was issued, are automatically assigned a mandatory 50% increase of their sentence as well as one year of unconditional prison sentence, to deter any use for violence or intimidation purposes.

Also make it so that these permits can only be used to obtain non-automated weapons, and no handguns for hunting permit-based requests.


You're welcome.

"such as a belief that burglars should be murdered," If they break into your house it's legal to defend your property, what else are you gonna do? Shooting them seems a safer alternative to getting into a fist fight with them.

"with any and all other reasons being invalidated."
I'm going to collect them, the first gun I want is a mauser K98. All the guns on my list have much historical value.

"no handguns for hunting permit-based requests." From what I understand handgun hunting is something people do, saw it in a few hunting magazines.

Xan Krieger:
If they break into your house it's legal to defend your property, what else are you gonna do? Shooting them seems a safer alternative to getting into a fist fight with them.

Xan, please, don't bother with him. He's just going to say it will never happen to you and has never happened to anyone. He will assure you that people who break into homes never mean harm and never kill the inhabitants.

GunsmithKitten:

Karma168:
40 years self defence no longer a valid reason

No police. No firearms.

Better pray that knives are enough to keep my still crippled, but now 70 plus year old ass alive if I'm still around by then.

That's just a gun law timeline, I wouldn't expect it to happen in a vacuum. While this is going on you'd have similar changes in police, education, law, city planning, etc. So while you might not have your gun in 40 years, in 20 the police would be in a much better position to maintain law and order, negating the need for one long before the self defence reason is removed.

It's stupid to think that one thing can change with everything staying the same. The point about the long game was eventually the public opinion will change and resistance to policy will die off (compare to civil rights), banning everything at once causes backlash but changing things slowly with improvements in wider society mean that resistance is going to fade away as people's opinions are altered by the society they live in

Karma168:

GunsmithKitten:

Karma168:
40 years self defence no longer a valid reason

No police. No firearms.

Better pray that knives are enough to keep my still crippled, but now 70 plus year old ass alive if I'm still around by then.

That's just a gun law timeline, I wouldn't expect it to happen in a vacuum. While this is going on you'd have similar changes in police, education, law, city planning, etc. So while you might not have your gun in 40 years, in 20 the police would be in a much better position to maintain law and order, negating the need for one long before the self defence reason is removed.

It's stupid to think that one thing can change with everything staying the same. The point about the long game was eventually the public opinion will change and resistance to policy will die off (compare to civil rights), banning everything at once causes backlash but changing things slowly with improvements in wider society mean that resistance is going to fade away as people's opinions are altered by the society they live in

I admire that optimism, especially the "you won't need to be able to defend yourself" one.

Shame I got this nagging injury that won't ever let me believe it.

GunsmithKitten:
I admire that optimism, especially the "you won't need to be able to defend yourself" one.
Shame I got this nagging injury that won't ever let me believe it.

If I recall correctly, your traumatising experience was escalated only because you pulled a gun on someone who was using threatening language. Whatever happened after that as a result of your use of weapons is obviously a result of the use of weapons. If you go around armed to the teeth you can expect that to have consequences. As you may recall someone pulled a gun on me too, and I had to fuck him up to secure the situation again. Yeah, he may complain his nose can never be fixed anymore, but hey, don't pull a gun, don't get hurt. Don't act surprised if you threaten someone with death, and they respond violently in self-defense.

At least you're alive, unlike, say, more than twenty schoolchildren, or the two firemen killed in the latest use of the Second Amendment. They're a lot worse off than you are.

Xan Krieger:
"such as a belief that burglars should be murdered," If they break into your house it's legal to defend your property, what else are you gonna do? Shooting them seems a safer alternative to getting into a fist fight with them.

I don't see how that's a response to my post. I speak of how deluded the idea is that someone is entitled to commit murder upon common thieves, and you bring up self-defense? That's an entirely different topic, not related to gun ownership at all.

By the way, I don't understand how you can view a crazy shootout that will result in someone getting killed or seriously wounded, as more safe than exchanging a few punches with someone. There's a lot more that gun owners and me don't seem to be on the same page on, but I really don't understand how someone can view a bruise or two as worse than being shot dead.

Xan Krieger:
From what I understand handgun hunting is something people do, saw it in a few hunting magazines.

Seems they'll have to switch to a rifle then, because handguns are too often used for murder and other forms of violence.

Blablahb:

Kopikatsu:
If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it..

Institute a total weapon ban, with exceptions possible, only after permit, which can only be obtained with a clean background, safe storage, a psychiatric report which shows no signs of being dangerously unstable, such as a belief that burglars should be murdered, and require a valid reason in the form of an already existing hunting permit or sports shooting membership, with any and all other reasons being invalidated. Further legislate that gun owners who use their weapon for any other purpose than the purpose for which the permit was issued, are automatically assigned a mandatory 50% increase of their sentence as well as one year of unconditional prison sentence, to deter any use for violence or intimidation purposes.

Also make it so that these permits can only be used to obtain non-automated weapons, and no handguns for hunting permit-based requests.


You're welcome.

So shooting animals and paper for sport is a valid reason to have a firearm and defending my family and myself isn't? You also keep using the term "murdered" when you talk about shooting people who break into someones home. Murder my dear friend is an "unlawful killing" as opposed to one that is lawful. If someone is in your home in my state (Georgia) you can pretty much shoot them on the spot. So is it murder? No, its standing your ground. I don't know whether you are intentionally using the term to make it seem wrong or are simply using the word you know but either way its incorrect.

Blablahb:
If I recall correctly, your traumatising experience was escalated only because you pulled a gun on someone who was using threatening language. Whatever happened after that as a result of your use of weapons is obviously a result of the use of weapons. If you go around armed to the teeth you can expect that to have consequences. As you may recall someone pulled a gun on me too, and I had to fuck him up to secure the situation again. Yeah, he may complain his nose can never be fixed anymore, but hey, don't pull a gun, don't get hurt. Don't act surprised if you threaten someone with death, and they respond violently in self-defense.

Taking you off of ignore to address this crap.

Firstly, seperate incident. My injury was from being blindsided by a drunk with a crowbar who needed a woman to take out his angst on.

Secondly, I pulled a handgun during an armed robbery only when the robber tried to get over the counter, brandishing a weapon (a flathead screwdriver is as sharp as a knife in terms of using it as a stabbing weapon) and telling me to come with him and get in his car. He had the intention to kill me, and said as such when questioned later.

The result of me using my weapon was him standing down until the police came to collect him.

I was not "armed to the teeth" at the time. The handgun under the counter belonged to the owner of the store.

Shock and Awe:

Blablahb:

Kopikatsu:
If the gun control crowd wanted to put forth legislation that would actually make a difference, they're welcome to it..

Institute a total weapon ban, with exceptions possible, only after permit, which can only be obtained with a clean background, safe storage, a psychiatric report which shows no signs of being dangerously unstable, such as a belief that burglars should be murdered, and require a valid reason in the form of an already existing hunting permit or sports shooting membership, with any and all other reasons being invalidated. Further legislate that gun owners who use their weapon for any other purpose than the purpose for which the permit was issued, are automatically assigned a mandatory 50% increase of their sentence as well as one year of unconditional prison sentence, to deter any use for violence or intimidation purposes.

Also make it so that these permits can only be used to obtain non-automated weapons, and no handguns for hunting permit-based requests.


You're welcome.

So shooting animals and paper for sport is a valid reason to have a firearm and defending my family and myself isn't? You also keep using the term "murdered" when you talk about shooting people who break into someones home. Murder my dear friend is an "unlawful killing" as opposed to one that is lawful. If someone is in your home in my state (Georgia) you can pretty much shoot them on the spot. So is it murder? No, its standing your ground. I don't know whether you are intentionally using the term to make it seem wrong or are simply using the word you know but either way its incorrect.

My state (North Carolina, home of the Escapist) has the same laws, the castle doctrine as it's called. Most states have laws like it thankfully.

I'm not saying that men overall are less entitled to personal safety but speaking as a FEMALE, you can take my guns when you can assure me I won't get raped or killed walking down the street alone at night - or sleeping in my own goddamn house.
You can take when living alone is no longer a hazardous way for me to live - or better yet you can let me keep it and focus on fixing the real problem : the insane nutjobs who commit these types of murders.

Capcthasadsfasdf: No way

True dat cappie. True dat.

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:
If I recall correctly, your traumatising experience was escalated only because you pulled a gun on someone who was using threatening language. Whatever happened after that as a result of your use of weapons is obviously a result of the use of weapons. If you go around armed to the teeth you can expect that to have consequences. As you may recall someone pulled a gun on me too, and I had to fuck him up to secure the situation again. Yeah, he may complain his nose can never be fixed anymore, but hey, don't pull a gun, don't get hurt. Don't act surprised if you threaten someone with death, and they respond violently in self-defense.

Taking you off of ignore to address this crap.

Firstly, seperate incident. My injury was from being blindsided by a drunk with a crowbar who needed a woman to take out his angst on.

Secondly, I pulled a handgun during an armed robbery only when the robber tried to get over the counter, brandishing a weapon (a flathead screwdriver is as sharp as a knife in terms of using it as a stabbing weapon) and telling me to come with him and get in his car. He had the intention to kill me, and said as such when questioned later.

The result of me using my weapon was him standing down until the police came to collect him.

I was not "armed to the teeth" at the time. The handgun under the counter belonged to the owner of the store.

Thank you - smart person! *hugs*

But thinking about it...

Isn't everything with a physical mass technically a killing weapon waiting to happen with enough force?

OH GOD ITS TIME TO BAN THE USAGE OF CHAIRS!

... Are we all arguing about banning all guns in the US or are we arguing that nobody needs an assault rifle? Cos to the former, it should be your long-term aim to ban guns. Some of the ladies are suggesting that guns are the only way for them to defend themselves. I would suggest that they can also be attacked with guns. Gunsmith Kitten, what if that robber had had a handgun himself? Angelblaze, what if your future violent murderer had a handgun?

Seriously. I don't understand you folk, it's as if you think you'll always have the advantage if you have a gun.

To the latter, nobody should have an assault rifle. An assault rifle is something you'd use only if you're off to actually go kill something.

Angelblaze:
Isn't everything with a physical mass technically a killing weapon waiting to happen with enough force?

OH GOD ITS TIME TO BAN THE USAGE OF CHAIRS!

That's an improvised weapon, not a weapon by design. But, yeah, it'd count as a weapon if you robbed a bank with a chair that you intended to use on someone. Problem would be proving intent. As soon as deaths due to chairs spike I will give banning chairs a serious thought.

Karma168:

Change the time period around however you like, just did it to end in 100 years.

Society as we know it will collapse long before then. I think maybe I will post a scary graph thread to show you why there is not a bright happy future in store for the world.

Anyway, when shit hits the fan, I will have assault rifles, hand guns, shot guns and body armor. That's really all that matters to me; better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it.

This is not your typical blip in the economy where we return to boom times again; this is about globalization coming to a head, it's about an out of control global population, the lowest share of profits taken by workers in a century, the increase in energy and food prices- it's all tied together and for it to work either billions of people have to die so standard of living can go up for the rest; or the standard of living has to drop so dramatically that the whole carrot on a stick thing that keeps people law abiding, polite, and going to work comes screeching to a halt.

Technology is not going to save us, this is about too many people, finite resources, rising energy and food costs, the collapse of society.

You can sit on the internet and argue about gun control, or you can do things to protect your own ass. Up to you.

P.S.

Oh, you're from Britain? Guess you're up shit's creek then. Really, I think a lot of Europeans are just jealous that when the time comes that they are basically screwed.

Odgical:
... Are we all arguing about banning all guns in the US or are we arguing that nobody needs an assault rifle? Cos to the former, it should be your long-term aim to ban guns. Some of the ladies are suggesting that guns are the only way for them to defend themselves. I would suggest that they can also be attacked with guns. Gunsmith Kitten, what if that robber had had a handgun himself? Angelblaze, what if your future violent murderer had a handgun?

Seriously. I don't understand you folk, it's as if you think you'll always have the advantage if you have a gun.

Not an advantage, but simply a means -an option. Just having the gun doesn't resolve the situation, but NOT having a weapon can make some situations resolve out of your favor (with lethal consequences).

They are tools, not magic objects. If you are presented with an assailant that you cannot reliably repel any other way (particularly an armed one) then being armed yourself can save your life. However, it is important to realize that firearms are not life savers, nor takers, in and of themselves; they are tools. No more frightening than a chainsaw, car, or screwdriver (thus the plethora of arguments to that effect).

xDarc:
-snip-

Wait, when has this turned into the latest action/adventure flick review? I mean, I'd call Poe, but I have this strange suspicion you're actually being serious; or maybe just indulging in some kind of adolescent power fantasy.

Sorry, I mean, you can boast all you want, but it's going to be a cold day on Venus before I think anything other than "talk is cheap".

senordesol:
Not an advantage, but simply a means -an option. Just having the gun doesn't resolve the situation, but NOT having a weapon can make some situations resolve out of your favor (with lethal consequences).

They are tools, not magic objects. If you are presented with an assailant that you cannot reliably repel any other way (particularly an armed one) then being armed yourself can save your life. However, it is important to realize that firearms are not life savers, nor takers, in and of themselves; they are tools. No more frightening than a chainsaw, car, or screwdriver (thus the plethora of arguments to that effect).

A chainsaw, a car and a screwdriver are not designed to kill, a gun has no purpose other than harm. If you are not harming someone with a gun then you are not using it for the primary purpose of its existence. In that way, they may not be life savers but they are certainly life takers.

You'd think that bullet proof vests would be all the rage in the US.

Captcha: I want control

Odgical:

senordesol:
Not an advantage, but simply a means -an option. Just having the gun doesn't resolve the situation, but NOT having a weapon can make some situations resolve out of your favor (with lethal consequences).

They are tools, not magic objects. If you are presented with an assailant that you cannot reliably repel any other way (particularly an armed one) then being armed yourself can save your life. However, it is important to realize that firearms are not life savers, nor takers, in and of themselves; they are tools. No more frightening than a chainsaw, car, or screwdriver (thus the plethora of arguments to that effect).

A chainsaw, a car and a screwdriver are not designed to kill, a gun has no purpose other than harm. If you are not harming someone with a gun then you are not using it for the primary purpose of its existence. In that way, they may not be life savers but they are certainly life takers.

You'd think that bullet proof vests would be all the rage in the US.

Captcha: I want control

Sorry, no. Strictly speaking: a firearm's purspose is to fire a projectile or projectiles from its barrel. To say 'its purpose is for killing' as if some talisman of reckless destruction is incorrect. To be more specific: the design of the firearm and width of its barrel can facilitate accuracy and the mass of its projectiles; but to suggest that the TENS OF MILLIONS of firearm owners who don't hurt anyone are somehow using their weapons improperly is silly on its face.

The ABUSING the capabilities of a firearm to cause deadly harm to innocents is no different than ABUSING the use of any other tool to that same end. And just as abuse of such tools do not invalidate the legitimate purposes they reserve (a car is meant for transport, etc), the abuse of a firearm does not invalidate the legitimate uses of another.

Firearms HAVE legitimate purpose: Hunting, Sport, and Defense. These are the methods that are acceptable to use a firearm. Cars have a legitimate purpose: transport & sport. Just as with firearms, however, the where, when, and why a car is used seperates a legitimate use from an illegitimate use. My car may be meant for transport, but I cannot use it to transport me across an intersection on a red light, nor can I use it to transport me down a private road I am not authorized to use. Further, using them for murder, just as using a car or a chainsaw or a screwdriver for murder, is an ILLEGITIMATE use.

senordesol:
My car may be meant for transport, but I cannot use it to transport me across an intersection on a red light, nor can I use it to transport me down a private road I am not authorized to use. Further, using them for murder, just as using a car or a chainsaw or a screwdriver for murder, is an ILLEGITIMATE use.

That's why you can't just walk into a car store and buy one, then drive home with it, yes. And why it's subject to all kinds of scrutiny and must meet certain standards of safety, and there's certain paperwork to be done before you can start using it. And even if you own a car, you may not necessarily even be allowed to use it unless you have a document that proves that you indeed are fit to use it. I don't know how it is over there, but I doubt you need a driver's license to purchase a car. Even so, still doesn't mean you can drive.

All those procedures are in place to limit all the potential harm millions of cars on your street are capable of inflicting.

It might be a good idea to have similar procedures for firearms.

After reading most of the posts, if i can make but a simple observation as a non-USA person.
The only legal weapon a civilian should be allowed to own in my opinion is a 22calibar weapon nothing else.
Ofc. people will argue "but criminals have high calibar automatics", yes they do , but the only reason why they have those weapones is because of pathetic punishments the USA has for having in your possetion ,illegal firearms.You need strict laws like in the UK for example.
For example:
1)Having an unlicenced high calibar weapon in your posetion, 5 years in jail
2)Selling illegal firearms 25 years in jail.

The fact is people , are sometimes stupid,get drunk , get high and have no control over their actions, and if someone who is drunk/high/druged out of his mind and has no control over his behavior, picks up an ak-47 for example just imagine the amount of damage and suffering he can potencialy cause.

Vegosiux:

senordesol:
My car may be meant for transport, but I cannot use it to transport me across an intersection on a red light, nor can I use it to transport me down a private road I am not authorized to use. Further, using them for murder, just as using a car or a chainsaw or a screwdriver for murder, is an ILLEGITIMATE use.

That's why you can't just walk into a car store and buy one, then drive home with it, yes. And why it's subject to all kinds of scrutiny and must meet certain standards of safety, and there's certain paperwork to be done before you can start using it. And even if you own a car, you may not necessarily even be allowed to use it unless you have a document that proves that you indeed are fit to use it. I don't know how it is over there, but I doubt you need a driver's license to purchase a car. Even so, still doesn't mean you can drive.

All those procedures are in place to limit all the potential harm millions of cars on your street are capable of inflicting.

To which I agree. Further, I agree that some form of proficiency test, background check, and registration should be required in order to own a firearm.

This still doesn't change the fact, however, that you can have all those things and still abuse/misuse your car if you choose. Still, your choice to do so does not automatically deligitimize those who use and own vehicles for their practical purpose.

Vegosiux:

xDarc:
-snip-

Wait, when has this turned into the latest action/adventure flick review? I mean, I'd call Poe, but I have this strange suspicion you're actually being serious; or maybe just indulging in some kind of adolescent power fantasy.

Sorry, I mean, you can boast all you want, but it's going to be a cold day on Venus before I think anything other than "talk is cheap".

Of course I'm being serious. Do you seriously think the world can go on in the current state it's in? For how long?

The only thing that holds society together is reward, the reward of security and safety, jobs, prosperity, food and shelter. When the reward part of it is gone, and people are more concerned with finding something to eat- there is no more society; only survival and anarchy.

What do you think is going to happen when the earth hits 10.5 billion sometime in the next 3 decades? Magic food fairies will descend and replenish all the topsoil we are currently chewing up 40% faster than it can be replaced? What about the diminishing returns we are getting from producing energy and the rising costs? When the price of energy rises, there will be less food and what food there is will also cost more.

Things are gonna be bad, talk may be cheap- but there is plenty of information out there if you want to see where things are headed. Maybe when I feel like I will put a collection of them together in one thread, however as it's pretty depressing, and I don't have a lot of free time as I'm 30, pay a mortgage and go to work every damn day- it may be a while. Especially a wasted effort considering the kinds of ears it will fall on.

senordesol:
Strictly speaking: a firearm's purspose is to fire a projectile or projectiles from its barrel.

senordesol:
Firearms HAVE legitimate purpose: Hunting, Sport, and Defense.

Well. That's not fair. I'm not sure which one to dismantle first. The ridiculous pedantic nature of the first purpose or the second, either manipulative or naive, purpose.

To the first, "The purpose of a car is not for transport or for sport, it is to burn fuel and move in a direction". Sounds silly doesn't it? Firing a projectile from its barrel is just the how.

To the second, hunting means causing harm, just to something you probably won't care about. We'll move on, though, to ponder which one soldiers use. Let's not limit this to soldiers in Afghanistan, though, because the purpose of firearms haven't changed, right? Why would they? So we'll use ambushes. When a soldier is performing an ambush, not being the victim of one, is the soldier defending himself or is he misusing the weapon?

Doesn't matter if it's defending from a future threat, the purpose is to kill someone. I'm writing this in advance to save myself some time replying.

You want my advice? Go back to the moral, yet flawed, high ground of people needing guns to defend themselves. There's a reason the NRA don't say that the gunman at the school was using the weapons wrong.

xDarc:

Vegosiux:

xDarc:
-snip-

Wait, when has this turned into the latest action/adventure flick review? I mean, I'd call Poe, but I have this strange suspicion you're actually being serious; or maybe just indulging in some kind of adolescent power fantasy.

Sorry, I mean, you can boast all you want, but it's going to be a cold day on Venus before I think anything other than "talk is cheap".

Of course I'm being serious. Do you seriously think the world can go on in the current state it's in? For how long?

The only thing that holds society together is reward, the reward of security and safety, jobs, prosperity, food and shelter. When the reward part of it is gone, and people are more concerned with finding something to eat- there is no more society; only survival and anarchy.

What do you think is going to happen when the earth hits 10.5 billion sometime in the next 3 decades? Magic food fairies will descend and replenish all the topsoil we are currently chewing up 40% faster than it can be replaced? What about the diminishing returns we are getting from producing energy and the rising costs? When the price of energy rises, there will be less food and what food there is will also cost more.

Things are gonna be bad, talk may be cheap- but there is plenty of information out there if you want to see where things are headed. Maybe when I feel like I will put a collection of them together in one thread, however as it's pretty depressing, and I don't have a lot of free time as I'm 30, pay a mortgage and go to work every damn day- it may be a while. Especially a wasted effort considering the kinds of ears it will fall on.

Dude, you should be like my uncle. Move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere, and eat gum leaves for sustenance. He wanted to get a gun, but the government didn't think that "defence from post-apocalyptic Mad Max style bandits" was a valid reason. As a bonus, the reptilians haven't bothered him since he started.

Reginald:

Dude, you should be like my uncle. Move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere, and eat gum leaves for sustenance.

Remember at the end I said posting an elaborate thread which showcases all of the indicators of impending societal collapse in one place would be a waste of time considering the audience here?

Well, here's a prime example of a member of that audience. I could post everything, every scary graph and fact, and it would just be shrugged off by some british kid with a crazy uncle joke. Waste of time.

xDarc:

Reginald:

Dude, you should be like my uncle. Move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere, and eat gum leaves for sustenance.

Remember at the end I said posting an elaborate thread which showcases all of the indicators of impending societal collapse in one place would be a waste of time considering the audience here?

Well, here's a prime example of a member of that audience. I could post everything, every scary graph and fact, and it would just be shrugged off by some british kid with a crazy uncle joke. Waste of time.

I really don't want to get involved over weather somebody who debates gun control on a gaming site is really going to be in any sort of survivable position in an apocalyptic scenario just because he happens to have a gun (comparison, just because I have a car doesn't mean I can drive an ambulance effectively) but I will say this,
do not, I say again, do not call Australians British.

xDarc:

Of course I'm being serious. Do you seriously think the world can go on in the current state it's in? For how long?

No, I don't, why would you assume I do? Or rather, the word can and will, just our civilization is going to run into some issues.

The only thing that holds society together is reward, the reward of security and safety, jobs, prosperity, food and shelter. When the reward part of it is gone, and people are more concerned with finding something to eat- there is no more society; only survival and anarchy.

And the way you talk about it you almost come across as if you wish that happened yesterday so you could display your gung-ho tough guy badassery. And that's what I took issue with.

What do you think is going to happen when the earth hits 10.5 billion sometime in the next 3 decades?

Well, I...wait, it seems you weren't actually interested in what I would say here.

Magic food fairies will descend and replenish all the topsoil we are currently chewing up 40% faster than it can be replaced?

No, I do not think that.

What about the diminishing returns we are getting from producing energy and the rising costs? When the price of energy rises, there will be less food and what food there is will also cost more.

Hell, you make Malthus look like an optimist. Yeah, shit will hit the fan, but I do not exactly expect the Fallout universe to happen anytime soon on this planet and whoever comes across as actually wishing for that to happen just to get some free lease on life or something, scares the shit out of me.

Things are gonna be bad, talk may be cheap- but there is plenty of information out there if you want to see where things are headed. Maybe when I feel like I will put a collection of them together in one thread, however as it's pretty depressing, and I don't have a lot of free time as I'm 30, pay a mortgage and go to work every damn day- it may be a while. Especially a wasted effort considering the kinds of ears it will fall on.

Yeah well...sorry I'm not graced with the same kind of survivalist attitude as you are.

Odgical:

senordesol:
Strictly speaking: a firearm's purspose is to fire a projectile or projectiles from its barrel.

senordesol:
Firearms HAVE legitimate purpose: Hunting, Sport, and Defense.

Well. That's not fair. I'm not sure which one to dismantle first. The ridiculous pedantic nature of the first purpose or the second, either manipulative or naive, purpose.

To the first, "The purpose of a car is not for transport or for sport, it is to burn fuel and move in a direction". Sounds silly doesn't it? Firing a projectile from its barrel is just the how.

To the second, hunting means causing harm, just to something you probably won't care about. We'll move on, though, to ponder which one soldiers use. Let's not limit this to soldiers in Afghanistan, though, because the purpose of firearms haven't changed, right? Why would they? So we'll use ambushes. When a soldier is performing an ambush, not being the victim of one, is the soldier defending himself or is he misusing the weapon?

Doesn't matter if it's defending from a future threat, the purpose is to kill someone. I'm writing this in advance to save myself some time replying.

You want my advice? Go back to the moral, yet flawed, high ground of people needing guns to defend themselves. There's a reason the NRA don't say that the gunman at the school was using the weapons wrong.

Sorry. I'd assumed weapon use in wartime had little relevance to what neccesities civilians had to own them (as is the purpose of this thread). Maybe I should have been clearer: the legitimate CIVILIAN purposes of firearms are: hunting, sport, and defense. If we want to talk about whether and why the military needs guns -- that's a whole other discussion.

Now I don't know what that crack about the NRA at the end was about. Do you really think if you asked an NRA member if slaughtering an entire school's worth of children is a legitimate use of a firearm they would answer 'yes'?

MarioTheMacedonian:
The only legal weapon a civilian should be allowed to own in my opinion is a 22calibar weapon nothing else.

Do you like eating? Then perhaps it would not be wise to ban farmers from owning firearms capable of killing pests. Also, we Americans have not destroyed our environment they way y'all have. For example, bear attacks are sort of common and because of that some people carry pistols like a Ruger Super Redhawk (a friend of mine carries one of those in Alaska) or an S&W 500.

Ofc. people will argue "but criminals have high calibar automatics", yes they do , but the only reason why they have those weapones is because of pathetic punishments the USA has for having in your possetion ,illegal firearms.You need strict laws like in the UK for example.

What about Jamaica? At one point the gun court (yes, there is a court specifically for guns in Jamaica) was practically required to hand out life sentences for most violations of Jamaican gun laws. You see how well that worked out.

The fact is people , are sometimes stupid,get drunk , get high and have no control over their actions, and if someone who is drunk/high/druged out of his mind and has no control over his behavior, picks up an ak-47 for example just imagine the amount of damage and suffering he can potencialy cause.

Potentially, but not practically.

Odgical:

senordesol:
Strictly speaking: a firearm's purspose is to fire a projectile or projectiles from its barrel.

senordesol:
Firearms HAVE legitimate purpose: Hunting, Sport, and Defense.

Well. That's not fair. I'm not sure which one to dismantle first. The ridiculous pedantic nature of the first purpose or the second, either manipulative or naive, purpose.

To the first, "The purpose of a car is not for transport or for sport, it is to burn fuel and move in a direction". Sounds silly doesn't it? Firing a projectile from its barrel is just the how.

To the second, hunting means causing harm, just to something you probably won't care about. We'll move on, though, to ponder which one soldiers use. Let's not limit this to soldiers in Afghanistan, though, because the purpose of firearms haven't changed, right? Why would they? So we'll use ambushes. When a soldier is performing an ambush, not being the victim of one, is the soldier defending himself or is he misusing the weapon?

Doesn't matter if it's defending from a future threat, the purpose is to kill someone. I'm writing this in advance to save myself some time replying.

You want my advice? Go back to the moral, yet flawed, high ground of people needing guns to defend themselves. There's a reason the NRA don't say that the gunman at the school was using the weapons wrong.

I actually agree with you on one thing; most guns are created for the purpose of taking human life. I can take my own collection for example. I have five firearms and three of them were created to kill people. Two are Eastern bloc surplus and one is a semiautomatic pistol. The other two were created for sport; one for hunting and the other for plinking and varmints. However these too could easily be used to take the life of another person. That all being said none(in my possession, can't speak for the surplus rifles) have ever taken a human life. This is because I have not sought out others to harm and none have attempted to harm me in such a manner; therefore they remain to be used on paper and the odd cement block.

Just because something was meant to kill does not mean it must. In the vast majority of cases they never will. Most firearms are used much as mine are. A person keeps one or maybe two loaded within their home, somewhere easily reached buy typically concealed; in case they are needed. Once in awhile they will be used on paper and other inanimate objects or maybe taken to kill animals. This continues for years and almost none will ever be used to fulfill their "purpose". Why? Because the owner of a firearm gives them their purpose. Syria's military can easily attest to that as their arms have been turned on them en mass.

farson135:

MarioTheMacedonian:
The only legal weapon a civilian should be allowed to own in my opinion is a 22calibar weapon nothing else.

Do you like eating? Then perhaps it would not be wise to ban farmers from owning firearms capable of killing pests. Also, we Americans have not destroyed our environment they way y'all have. For example, bear attacks are sort of common and because of that some people carry pistols like a Ruger Super Redhawk (a friend of mine carries one of those in Alaska) or an S&W 500.

Ofc. people will argue "but criminals have high calibar automatics", yes they do , but the only reason why they have those weapones is because of pathetic punishments the USA has for having in your possetion ,illegal firearms.You need strict laws like in the UK for example.

What about Jamaica? At one point the gun court (yes, there is a court specifically for guns in Jamaica) was practically required to hand out life sentences for most violations of Jamaican gun laws. You see how well that worked out.

You have somewhat of a point. Ok farmers need higher calibar weapones , but why would someone living in a densly populated region(like a city) need a high calibar weapon?

And you take jamaica for example? Rly?
why dont take the UK for example?
after the Dunblane school massacre of 1996 almost all weapones over 22cal were illegal if you live in the city, and this is why the Uk has one of the smallest gun related incidents in the world.
How many more children have to die before americans realise that high cal weapones in civilian hands is dangerous??

xDarc:
Society as we know it will collapse long before then. I think maybe I will post a scary graph thread to show you why there is not a bright happy future in store for the world.

Anyway, when shit hits the fan, I will have assault rifles, hand guns, shot guns and body armor. That's really all that matters to me; better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it.

LOL! Lets say you are right.

When the post apocalypse arrives in the 'free' US, your firearms not make you safe or powerful, because EVERYBODY has a firearm. You will have no advantage.

While in 'not free' Australia I will have some of the very rare firearms, putting me at the top of the food chain.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked