Gun Control

[sees_all1]

@furah: the amount of time you'd spend in jail for doing that...close to 8months. Even if a burglar/someone suspicious is intruding, it still doesn't give you the right to fire your gun off willy nilly.

Actually, in many of the states there are laws called "Your home is your castle."

This, in essence, means you have the right to use whatever force you deem necessary to protect yourself and everything on your property. Basically, if someone holds a shotgun to your face and says, "Get off my property," you'd better listen.

[Giordano]

Wish California had that.

 

...and less gun control. :(

[Blyaunte]

And should an accident happen, a minor leg wound is worth more than a dead burglar/you spending 30yrs in jail. Why not use non-lethal weopens, like say, pepperspray. Or pepperballs. Then you can shoo away intruders without worrying about accidentally blowing their brains out. (And if you're confused about what pepperballs are, they're paintballs filled with either liquid pepperspray or other non-lethal chemicals which have the same effect as pepperspray.)

 

Hell -- why not just use a paintball gun?

 

Those things HURT! :blink:

[foursideking]

The pepperballs are actually made specifically for paintball guns...cost is around 3x as much as normal paintballs, but is still cheaper than bullets...

[Blyaunte]

The pepperballs are actually made specifically for paintball guns...cost is around 3x as much as normal paintballs, but is still cheaper than bullets...

 

... and I bet they HURT! :o

[foursideking]

My friend bought some to go hunting with a year ago...3 shots were enough to permanently blind/stun a deer. They hurt, but not in the 'ouch' form...

[das1330]

Wish California had that.

 

...and less gun control. :(

 

California does have castle doctrine passed. Though the gun controls are annoying, they don't materially impact the purchase of weapons - legal loopholes are so huge it's trivial to get whatever you want anyhow.

 

Besides, just wait a few years and the supreme court will strike many of those laws down :)

[Furah]

And should an accident happen, a minor leg wound is worth more than a dead burglar/you spending 30yrs in jail. Why not use non-lethal weopens, like say, pepperspray. Or pepperballs. Then you can shoo away intruders without worrying about accidentally blowing their brains out. (And if you're confused about what pepperballs are, they're paintballs filled with either liquid pepperspray or other non-lethal chemicals which have the same effect as pepperspray.)

 

Hell -- why not just use a paintball gun?

 

Those things HURT! :blink:

Where I live the storage of paint-ball guns makes it harder to use for self defence purposes. Airsoft guns are also completely illegal.

 

And should an accident happen, a minor leg wound is worth more than a dead burglar/you spending 30yrs in jail. Why not use non-lethal weopens, like say, pepperspray. Or pepperballs. Then you can shoo away intruders without worrying about accidentally blowing their brains out. (And if you're confused about what pepperballs are, they're paintballs filled with either liquid pepperspray or other non-lethal chemicals which have the same effect as pepperspray.)

Where I live it is completely illegal for civilians. Not to mention the Chemical Weapons Convention bans use of it in warfare as a chemical weapon.

 

@furah: the amount of time you'd spend in jail for doing that...close to 8months. Even if a burglar/someone suspicious is intruding, it still doesn't give you the right to fire your gun off willy nilly. The question isn't 'should people own/be allowed to use guns on suspicious people', the question is 'if you're really that afraid of burglary/crime, then why do you live in your residence/place and not somewhere else'. To quote what I said to the owner of our local shooting range, 'why do you really need a gun? Are you so afraid of other people that you need insurance should one of them turn rogue? Or are you trying to make yourself seem like more of an 'artificial threat'. Either way, I say adieu'

 

I live in the country, out here police and even to some extent the fire brigade and ambulance are useless.

[TrueBeaver]

Definitely didn't read the whole topic, but I'll give up my guns if the government takes them from the criminals first.

On a related note, my state is debating whether or not to lift the firearm ban on campuses :thumbsup: hope we do.

 

To the post about waiting a few years for the SCOTUS to strike down gun control laws: McDonald is now a precedent and with Kennedy siding with incorporation, future 2nd amendment incorporation suits have little chance :mrgreen: .

[Blyaunte]

I am left to wonder why, if you're supposedly going to use a gun for non-lethal enforcement purposes -- i.e. not actually going to shoot anyone with it, etc. -- and people purportedly aren't actually using them with lethal intentions, then how does it exactly make you more secure?

 

Why not simply equip yourself with something that would inflict minor harm, like a taser or paintball gun?

[Giordano]

I am left to wonder why, if you're supposedly going to use a gun for non-lethal enforcement purposes -- i.e. not actually going to shoot anyone with it, etc. -- and people purportedly aren't actually using them with lethal intentions, then how does it exactly make you more secure?

 

Why not simply equip yourself with something that would inflict minor harm, like a taser or paintball gun?

Because the burglar will know he can still grab the jewelery box, run as fast as he can, and probably make it.

 

Where as a gun threatens THEIR VERY LIVES, if they're smart they won't attempt it.

[ixfd64]

Gun control means hitting your target! :mrgreen:

[Furah]

[Freakyhair]

i kind of think guns should definately be ilegal.. buut at the same time i really want an uzi to shoot some cans and animals for fun. i have to pay 200pound for one here though, plus bullets are ridiculously expensive. damn uk...

 

but yeah then again, how many people go on mass killling sprees? very few. i hear of lots of gun problems in america. plus id rather some jumped up kid had a knife, and knew how to use it, than a gun.

 

but i REAALLY want that uzi..

[Zierro]

The sad reality about the entire gun ownership (control) debate is that, really, if you feel compelled to own one for the purposes of your own personal security what does that imply about:

 

1. The society in which you live in that you have to physically arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your fellow citizens; and

 

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

 

1. That it sucks and it's better to be prepared?

2. I'm not the type to kill over territorial purposes, but it definitely shouldn't be considered shocking that someone gets hurt after severely disrespecting another person. That's nature. You can't go around being an inconsiderate ass and expect nothing but good to come your way. When it comes down to it, a person stealing somebody else's things, in their home, in front of their nose, chose to put themselves in such an awful position. And the fact that a stranger broke into your residence is reason enough to be on the defense. Too bad home invasion and murder/rape have such an upsetting correlation, or else maybe people wouldn't feel the need to be on the defense so much when they hear their back window cracking. You don't know what they're there for. Simple as: You shouldn't be there. GTFO.

[Freakyhair]

The sad reality about the entire gun ownership (control) debate is that, really, if you feel compelled to own one for the purposes of your own personal security what does that imply about:

 

1. The society in which you live in that you have to physically arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your fellow citizens; and

 

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

 

1. That it sucks and it's better to be prepared?

2. I'm not the type to kill over territorial purposes, but it definitely shouldn't be considered shocking that someone gets hurt after severely disrespecting another person. That's nature. You can't go around being an inconsiderate ass and expect nothing but good to come your way. When it comes down to it, a person stealing somebody else's things, in their home, in front of their nose, chose to put themselves in such an awful position. And the fact that a stranger broke into your residence is reason enough to be on the defense. Too bad home invasion and murder/rape have such an upsetting correlation, or else maybe people wouldn't feel the need to be on the defense so much when they hear their back window cracking. You don't know what they're there for. Simple as: You shouldn't be there. GTFO.

 

yah true that.

 

1. i only know about british society, but its not really that bad. i know of like 2 people that have been house robbed. its usually really rich people and shop keepers.

2. yeah totally agree with this. in britain you can be put in prison for life if u kill someone that broke into your home, even if they might have killed u. i have no respect or time for thiefs, (in england anyway, can understand in many other parts of the world). what do people expect to happen?

[Blyaunte]

The sad reality about the entire gun ownership (control) debate is that, really, if you feel compelled to own one for the purposes of your own personal security what does that imply about:

 

1. The society in which you live in that you have to physically arm yourself in order to protect yourself from your fellow citizens; and

 

2. Does possessing a firearm with the intention of harming another person in order to protect your "stuff" from someone else, mean that you have so little concern for the life of another human being that you'd rather kill them than lose your X-box?

 

1. That it sucks and it's better to be prepared?

2. I'm not the type to kill over territorial purposes, but it definitely shouldn't be considered shocking that someone gets hurt after severely disrespecting another person. That's nature. You can't go around being an inconsiderate ass and expect nothing but good to come your way. When it comes down to it, a person stealing somebody else's things, in their home, in front of their nose, chose to put themselves in such an awful position. And the fact that a stranger broke into your residence is reason enough to be on the defense. Too bad home invasion and murder/rape have such an upsetting correlation, or else maybe people wouldn't feel the need to be on the defense so much when they hear their back window cracking. You don't know what they're there for. Simple as: You shouldn't be there. GTFO.

 

yah true that.

 

1. i only know about british society, but its not really that bad. i know of like 2 people that have been house robbed. its usually really rich people and shop keepers.

2. yeah totally agree with this. in britain you can be put in prison for life if u kill someone that broke into your home, even if they might have killed u. i have no respect or time for thiefs, (in england anyway, can understand in many other parts of the world). what do people expect to happen?

 

1. Should you be considering the sources of crime, why it's committed and actually correlating resources to improving the circumstances of others in order that they need not commit crime?

 

2. Very few crimes occur while the occupant is in the home. Does one really need a weapon capable of killing another person in order to protect their Xbox? Is a human life not worth more than your Xbox? Does one really need a weapon to protect a few pieces of paper with monetary values written upon them? Is your life or the life of another human being worth so little?

:unsure:

[Giordano]

 

 

1. Should you be considering the sources of crime, why it's committed and actually correlating resources to improving the circumstances of others in order that they need not commit crime?

No one. NO ONE is going to agree to give money to crack addicts.

 

2. Very few crimes occur while the occupant is in the home. Does one really need a weapon capable of killing another person in order to protect their Xbox family? Is a human life not worth more than your Xbox good people known to you as your family? Does one really need a weapon to protect few pieces of paper with monetary values written upon them what society forced our lives to be dependent on? Is your life or the life of another human being harm-bound human being worth so little?

:unsure:

 

Protip: Stop using moral conflict. It doesn't work for those who have a strong enough will on their own.

[Zierro]

1. i only know about british society, but its not really that bad. i know of like 2 people that have been house robbed. its usually really rich people and shop keepers.

 

And I get the feeling that this is a huge influence of one's pro-gun anti-gun attitudes. For example, I live a couple streets down from where the Deltona Massacre occurred. Long story short: Group of gangsters break into unoccupied house, setting up their Xbox and everything, girl returns to find them there, contacts officials, thugs get in trouble. Thugs feel they need revenge on this girl because she "disrespected them" and caused them to lose their Xbox. Thugs break in and beat her (raped her body), beat her five friends, and her dog to death with metal baseball bats (not guns). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltona_massacre

 

If this is how my society functions, I'd like to be prepared. And I can see why people in other areas around the world feel there is no need for self-defense - because in their home, there virtually isn't.

 

1. Should you be considering the sources of crime, why it's committed and actually correlating resources to improving the circumstances of others in order that they need not commit crime?

 

I would love to change the world and nip problems, such as the one I cited, at the bud. Just one question though: How? People will kill over the most ridiculously absurd of reasons. This has been occurring since the beginning of mankind. The most proactive way I can think of combating this issue is to obstruct their inevitable efforts.

[Blyaunte]

 

 

1. Should you be considering the sources of crime, why it's committed and actually correlating resources to improving the circumstances of others in order that they need not commit crime?

No one. NO ONE is going to agree to give money to crack addicts.

 

2. Very few crimes occur while the occupant is in the home. Does one really need a weapon capable of killing another person in order to protect their Xbox family? Is a human life not worth more than your Xbox good people known to you as your family? Does one really need a weapon to protect few pieces of paper with monetary values written upon them what society forced our lives to be dependent on? Is your life or the life of another human being harm-bound human being worth so little?

:unsure:

 

Protip: Stop using moral conflict. It doesn't work for those who have a strong enough will on their own.

 

Your problem is that you don't understand the benefits that befall a population when you actually realize what's important to humanity.

 

There are basic rights that are essential to humanity. These rights are, sadly, not guaranteed to all -- even in the United States:

 

The Right to Sustenance (food, water). Sadly, in many places, people are denied this most basic of rights. In the end, it is this very base human right that is the source of the vast majority of crime within one's borders.

 

The Right to Education: we are moving away from a world of "have and have not" to a world of "know and know not". In a time of information super-highways and international exchanges of ideas in a time when a "Facebook" generation is creating possibly dramatic changes in the Middle East, for example, knowledge is supplanting wealth as the mechanism of change.

 

The right to opportunity. Even the poorest of the poor has enormous potential and creativity. Without education and opportunity, all that potential is lost.

 

The right to peace. If you stopped spending money on weapons and military expenses, and spent it on education, imagine how much peace and prosperity you could buy?

 

Once you made the efforts to improve the world around you -- you'd find that you wouldn't "need" a gun so much ...

:rolleyes:

[Freakyhair]

 

 

1. Should you be considering the sources of crime, why it's committed and actually correlating resources to improving the circumstances of others in order that they need not commit crime?

No one. NO ONE is going to agree to give money to crack addicts.

 

2. Very few crimes occur while the occupant is in the home. Does one really need a weapon capable of killing another person in order to protect their Xbox family? Is a human life not worth more than your Xbox good people known to you as your family? Does one really need a weapon to protect few pieces of paper with monetary values written upon them what society forced our lives to be dependent on? Is your life or the life of another human being harm-bound human being worth so little?

:unsure:

 

Protip: Stop using moral conflict. It doesn't work for those who have a strong enough will on their own.

 

Your problem is that you don't understand the benefits that befall a population when you actually realize what's important to humanity.

 

There are basic rights that are essential to humanity. These rights are, sadly, not guaranteed to all -- even in the United States:

 

The Right to Sustenance (food, water). Sadly, in many places, people are denied this most basic of rights. In the end, it is this very base human right that is the source of the vast majority of crime within one's borders.

 

The Right to Education: we are moving away from a world of "have and have not" to a world of "know and know not". In a time of information super-highways and international exchanges of ideas – in a time when a "Facebook" generation is creating possibly dramatic changes in the Middle East, for example, knowledge is supplanting wealth as the mechanism of change.

 

The right to opportunity. Even the poorest of the poor has enormous potential and creativity. Without education and opportunity, all that potential is lost.

 

The right to peace. If you stopped spending money on weapons and military expenses, and spent it on education, imagine how much peace and prosperity you could buy?

 

Once you made the efforts to improve the world around you -- you'd find that you wouldn't "need" a gun so much ...

:rolleyes:

#

 

the us has a pretty raw attitude on that though. in uk people are either ilegal immigrants (not their fault) or drug addicts or bad/lazy people. those are the kinds of people that break into houses. and to be honest its a lot more junkies and lazy wanksters that do it that ilegal immigrants. i think even if everyone had water and basic human rights people would still break into others houses. also theirs a big difference in my books between breaking into a shop (like a big company) or bank, than somebodies house. thats just low imho and if people dont expect serious repercussions then.. tough luck.

 

although yeah that is true, from the sounds of it america has a really screwed up society. (no offense :P).

 

but what about our rights to own a gun eh? just because it can kill someone doesnt mean they should be practically ilegal.

 

like i already said i want an uzi to shoot cans and animals, why shouldn't i? if i bought one now the ammo would cost ridiculous prices and if someone heard it fired id get 2 years in prison. screw that.

 

oh yeah but my point is, no matter how great the society there will always be people who are going to steal/rob/rape. thats the way humans are im afraid. if i had bottle id rob a bank.

 

EDIT:

 

although legalising drugs would be one way to solve some problems. legal drugs - no more dealers. yeah theyd deal counterfiet [bleep]s and booze but the moneys no were near that of selling drugs. its soooooo easy to sell. if i wanted to i could make at least 1k a week selling, and im not excactly well connected. root of druggy and gangs problem.. unjust ilegalisation of drugs. which btw i also consider a human right :)

[angel_mage]

I don't agree with guns under any circumstances at all. It's bad enough to hear on the news everyday that people have been murdered with them, but also I have to hear about people accidentally getting killed by babies and people accidentally killing themselves. Do away with them once and for all and maybe the world will have a much smaller mortality rate.

[Freakyhair]

I don't agree with guns under any circumstances at all. It's bad enough to hear on the news everyday that people have been murdered with them, but also I have to hear about people accidentally getting killed by babies and people accidentally killing themselves. Do away with them once and for all and maybe the world will have a much smaller mortality rate.

 

that would be good. but. example, africans in the savanna.. TIGER!

or filmmakers in the arctic.. POLAR BEAR

 

i dunno guns are needed i reckons. were they originally made to kill people? they probably were actually wern't they..

 

but then you must hear about babies accidentally suffocating. or the woman that fell on some knives and died. its a very small minority, considering most households in the US own one (i think?)

[angel_mage]

 

that would be good. but. example, africans in the savanna.. TIGER!

or filmmakers in the arctic.. POLAR BEAR

 

i dunno guns are needed i reckons. were they originally made to kill people? they probably were actually wern't they..

 

but then you must hear about babies accidentally suffocating. or the woman that fell on some knives and died. its a very small minority, considering most households in the US own one (i think?)

 

Well, I wouldn't really mind if people in other countries own guns, but I'm concerned about the safety and well-being of my country as selfish as it sounds. It's scary having weapons that can kill from long range as opposed to a knife or bat of some sort.

[Freakyhair]

 

that would be good. but. example, africans in the savanna.. TIGER!

or filmmakers in the arctic.. POLAR BEAR

 

i dunno guns are needed i reckons. were they originally made to kill people? they probably were actually wern't they..

 

but then you must hear about babies accidentally suffocating. or the woman that fell on some knives and died. its a very small minority, considering most households in the US own one (i think?)

 

Well, I wouldn't really mind if people in other countries own guns, but I'm concerned about the safety and well-being of my country as selfish as it sounds. It's scary having weapons that can kill from long range as opposed to a knife or bat of some sort.

 

i can see what you mean, but it would have to be a nationwide effort. otherwise al quaeda is in the money lol!

 

i personally don't live in a country were most 14 year olds could kill easily if they wanted. well some still do. but yeah i can't really imagine what it's like.