 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Firearms, your thoughts? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101  Posts: 3843/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| I can't believe no one has made this thread in here yet. 0-o Anyway, I was going to make a poll but then it dawned on me that opinions on firearms are way too vast and different and I'd have to make at least 50 options. I'm not gunna.  Basically, what are your feelings on conventional firearms such as handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc...? I'll write up my response a little later because it's late and I have to go to work soon. Someone's got to pay the bills around here. >( |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 761/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| - Guns for hunting purposes (hunting rifles, etc.)? Sure, people should be allowed to hunt, some make part of their livelyhood on it. - Guns for sports purposes (airsoft-gun-replicas, etc.)? Sure, people should be allowed to partake in passtime-activities they like. Though sports such as airsoft and paintball should have an age limit of 18. I think we can all agree that children being taught to shoot at others with fairly accurate replicas (airsoft-guns are acurate, anyway) may not be adult enough to realize the difference between pretend-killing and actual killing (though, of course, whenever someone starts a sentence with "I think we can all agree...", someone simply has to come along and disagree, no?) - Guns for collecting purposes (WWII guns, etc.)? Sure, people should be allowed to pursue their hobbies, and some take a keen interest to old guns and weapons. - Guns for protection (handguns, etc.)? Nope. I don't believe guns offer protection. In a situation when someone is pointing a gun at you, when is he most likely to shoot you? When he feels threatened by you, only then would he have a reason to become a murderer. What would make him feel threatened by you? Well, when you pull your gun you have a tendency to suddenly seem a lot more threatening in most people's eyes. There are also way too many accidents involved with guns being employed for protection. People shooting their neighbour coming over to borrow a cup of sugar, or parents killing their kids sneeking in at home at two in the morning, and other deaths because of misunderstandings and accidents. Besides, allowing the people to carry their own guns will be one step in the direction of creating a lawless vigilante society, something I for one would like to be without. (edited by The Gamorr Z on 05-22-05 10:38 PM) |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 286/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| No-one advocates unresicted ownership of rocket launchers, no-one advocates the total banning of pistols and BB guns for everyone. After you get beyond that, it's all just quibbling over how much regulation there should be. There should be a graduated (ie, a variety of licenses for different weapon types) licensing scheme, and firearm registration. Treat 'em like cars, another dangerous machine. Guns don't substantially influence crime rates either by lowering or raising them. There's too many other much more significant factors at play to blame guns or lack of guns, for crime rising or lowering. Comparing across countries with any sort of accuracy is almost impossible. Since guns aren't a huge factor in crime rates, a moderately libertarian approach is best - the problem is, most zealous gun advocates spout rhetoric with revolutionary zeal, meaning they alienate almost the entire middle ground who don't care either way. Statistics in the gun debate are almost always horribly distorted and taken out of context. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 3864/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| You can't post a stat in a gun control debate without another stat on the same thing interpreted some sort of absolutely different way. It is annoying. "See, there are x gun killings in country x". Response: "Maybe there would be less killings in x style if guns were allowed". | |||
Valcion Kaizer Koopa Level: 15 Posts: 29/109 EXP: 15170 For next: 1214 Since: 05-08-05 Since last post: 143 days Last activity: 142 days |
| ||
| Seconded on treating them like cars. | |||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101 Posts: 3863/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| I guess it does come down to regulation. The way I see it, and this is talking about the USA, gun control laws need a serious reworking. It's so unbelievably easy to get a gun here even if you're under the age to own one. Arwon, from what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong here, the reason that gun related deaths in Australia is super low is because of the stringent process you have to go through to get one. I hear it's something like a 4(?) month waiting time while they perform a rigerous background check. And due to that, apparently most people find it to much of a hassle and don't even bother trying to get one. I also hear, and to me this seems hard to believe coming from where I do, that it's rare to even know someone who has actually seen one. " - Guns for protection (handguns, etc.)? Nope. " Have to agree with you there. Fighting fire with fire hardly ever works and this is one of those cases where it does not. If guns are suppose to be for protection, then one would feel safe around someone who had one on him or going into someones house that contained a firearm. But for me, and I'm sure many others as well, I feel the exact opposite. The thing that upsets me most though is the rate of accidental gun related deaths, especially when it comes to kids. I read somewhere that the ratio of deaths to emergency department visits for nonfirearm-related injuries for people under 20 was 1:760. It wouldn't be a big issue if these deaths were extremely rare but unfortunantly this shit happens many times in the course of a single day. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would keep a gun in their house if they have kids. Even if you do lock them up, there's still a chance for them to access it depending on the type of storage device you use. And there's always the comlacency factor. Eventually, someone is going to forget to lock it up and/or just leave it laying around. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing about yet another kid who's dead because some jackass thought that hiding a gun in a shoebox under the bed was the perfect safety plan. As for the other reasons to own a firearm(s) already stated in this thread, I think those are perfectly acceptable. It's when the whole "protection" excuse comes into play where things start fucking up. |
|||
windwaker Ball and Chain Trooper WHY ALL THE MAYONNAISE HATE Level: 61  Posts: 1588/1797 EXP: 1860597 For next: 15999 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 4 days Last activity: 6 days |
| ||
| Well, I think that we should have the right to own guns for protection, however, I don't plan on owning one any time soon. I think this should be done with many more restrictions, too. We were given the right to bear arms so that we could rebel against the government one day, if need be. 1984~ |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 288/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| It's not just gun related deaths... it's murder in general. Even given the different definitions of the homicide rates, out friggin murder rates in general are a small fraction of America's rate, and that's even when we include "attempted murder" and most forms of manslaughter in that rate ()though America includes vehicular manslaughter I believe, which does complicate matters). Beyond that though, there's quite a different culture around guns in this country. We've never had a "right to bare arms" (though the police have to my knowledge always been armed) and we don't really see guns in terms of self defence and stuff. Someone who keeps a gun by their bed for defence would be seen as a fairly paranoid eccentric. Also, most homocides make the news, which I guess is in contrast to the US these days. The main body of gun owners in this country seem to be farmers who need them for various things, and sport shooters who just like them. And security folks and so forth I guess. Yes, it's actually somewhat true, there's a lot of people who've never seen a gun (except on the belt of a copper) - unless you're in certain fields of work or have an active interest there's not really many around. In recent years there's been a reform of our gun laws, which to my knowledge has basically consisted of the federal government strongarming the states into falling into a uniform line (or possibly outright handing control of gun regulation to the Federal govt, I'm not sure). This has meant a tighter licensing scheme, a reclassification of some weapons, and the banning and buyback and destruction of a lot of semiautomatics etc. Many argue that it's excessive and not actually doing anything, I tend to agree, but the only people angry are the hardcore gun-nutters whose rhetoric is so unbalanced and zealous that most people probably would think they shouldn't have guns at all... (edited by Arwon on 05-23-05 02:09 PM) |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45 Posts: 764/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| I've never seen a handgun. I have a friend who's into airsoft and he has some gun replicas for playing airsoft, but I've never seen an actual gun (and, nope, policemen don't carry guns here. They have weapons at the police station, but the police will only wield those weapons if a situation should occur where they would need them (which really isn't that often)). The first time I saw a rifle was when I was 17, the year I lived in Texas. Though, I do come from Norway's number one moose-hunting county, but I've always been more of a city boy, so I've never been out hunting. Most young Norwegian men do get to handle guns for a year though (and the apropriate training), since we have conscription in this country, but I got out of that, because of my allergies...  |
|||
Tamarin Calanis We exist. Earth exists. The universe exists. Do we really need to know why? Level: 59 Posts: 541/1802 EXP: 1672751 For next: 377 Since: 07-12-04 From: The gas station on the corner... Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Emperor ZiffatineWe need them for hunting superanimals, like the flying squirrel and electric eel. Since my favorite idea for gun 'control' would never happen, ever, I'm not even gonna bother saying it. But tighter regulations should be in place, both for the obvious reason of trying to keep them away from criminals and to keep them out of the hands of idiots that don't know how to store them properly and away from kids. Unfortunately, I don't think any sort of intelligence test would screen out all the idiots, nor do I think any such test would ever become a requirement in this country anyway. |
|||
|
Slay Level: 25 Posts: 99/339 EXP: 85592 For next: 4028 Since: 04-28-05 From: Threshold Between Heaven and Hell Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| There's two ways to look at the issue. Idealistically, or realistically. Idealistically, the banning of guns from the nation at large (other than those used by the armed forces) eliminates shooting deaths, except in the rare case of a cop or army personnel who goes awry of the law. Realistically, if you take away a person's gun, they'll find some other way to kill people. Gun ownership is embedded in the American psyche, it's part of American history, which is something that many people are very dearly attached to. "Pioneers," as we call them, used their guns to hunt buffalo (to near extinction) and attack the natives (who had inferior weaponry). Some see this as noble, and the posession of guns as a tradition, heritage. Of course, we no longer live in the pioneering days. The times, as they say, have changed and the firearm has become not a piece of art, not a trusty sidekick, but an instrument of murder and resistance towards law enforcement. You could call me a radical or an idealistic hippie, but I am for the worldwide elimination of gun ownership. As for the, "I need a gun to protect myself," debate; if no one had guns, you wouldn't need one for protection. I am opposed to the very existence of guns. Their inception has hurt society as a whole. Not only are guns dangerous and, obviously, deadly, but I am opposed to them as the swordsman at heart that I am. I use "swordsman" as a gender-neutral term, if you must know. War, battle used to be about skill. The skill of an individual in their handling of a weapon. Axes, spears, swords. You had to train, often for your entire life, to become a great warrior. The advent of gun meant the dissolution of skill in war. Now it's all computer-aided, you need no talent to kill a man; simply aim a gun in his direction and begin firing until he stops moving. Back before guns, if you wanted to kill a man, you had to be a more capable warrior, a better fighter than he. But now I'm reduced to mere romantic rambling. If no one had guns, no one would need them. If you want to hunt, get a bow and learn to do it with grace. Sport hunting is immoral in my eyes, anyway. At the very least, I think gun ownership, in America and the world, should be treated as a privilege, not a right. You must earn a privilege, and if you abuse it, it is taken away from you. |
|||
|
Tamarin Calanis We exist. Earth exists. The universe exists. Do we really need to know why? Level: 59 Posts: 543/1802 EXP: 1672751 For next: 377 Since: 07-12-04 From: The gas station on the corner... Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Slay ... well,l I figured if I didn't say what my favorite idea regarding gun ownership was, someone else would say it. And here he is! And he said it better than I could, too. Thanks.  |
|||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44  Posts: 416/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SlayThat's all cheery and idealistic except for the fact that you can't make yourself into a capible warrior in the 30 seconds you have to live when some thug breaks into your house. People tend to forget the full implications of what they say. They don't consider the further implications their viewpoints might have. If you needed to be a skilled warrior to survive in a battle, you end up with 2 possible logical conclusions. 1: When you get attacked, or your house gets broken into, you're screwed. A gun allows people who otherwise have no combat training to be able to defend themselves. 2: You become a skilled warrior yourself, taking time away from other things such as your job in such a fashion that you can't contribute to society as anything other then a fighter. Not useful in a peaceful society. The problems with this are that you end up with 2 more logical conclusions. 1: The few who learn to be warriors can essentially act like barbarians and rape and pillage as they please. (More common then most people think before the time of guns.) 2: Everyone becomes a warrior and you end up with a population with no skills other then fighting. This causes a population to need to use war to sustain itself. The implications of your statements would likley lead to an INCREASE in violence rather then a decrease. |
|||
|
Tamarin Calanis We exist. Earth exists. The universe exists. Do we really need to know why? Level: 59 Posts: 544/1802 EXP: 1672751 For next: 377 Since: 07-12-04 From: The gas station on the corner... Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| Well, considering that (ideally speaking, for the scenario) weapons technology would have never proceeded past the Middle Ages or so, more effort would have been put into other things - like security systems. | |||
|
Slay Level: 25 Posts: 108/339 EXP: 85592 For next: 4028 Since: 04-28-05 From: Threshold Between Heaven and Hell Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| You've made good points, ||bass, but I'd thank you not to imply that I haven't fully thought-out my ideals, that I do not know the implications of what I say. Implication requires perception, so the feasability and realism of my words depends on the opinion and assumptions of the hearer of these words. Also note that proving one thing does not disprove another. "The return of the warrior would bring increased violence over what we have presently," does not prove that, "Guns are good," nor, "The world is better off with guns in it." | |||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44 Posts: 431/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
| Don't quote something I didn't say. What I said was: The implications of your statements would likley lead to an increase in violence rather then a decrease. |
|||
|
Graviteh Level: 31 Posts: 293/500 EXP: 165989 For next: 19374 Since: 03-27-05 From: The Internet Since last post: 42 days Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| Personally, If someone did break into your home, I'd hide. or call the police. Then if my situation worsened, I'd have to use a gun. Everyone needs to have guns. Of course, what about the hardened criminals? I think they should be stripped of their right to have a concealed weapon. | |||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44 Posts: 434/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
Originally posted by GravitehThe VAST MAJORITY of states don't allow concealed weapons to begin with. |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 3926/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| I've never heard of concealed weapons doing anything but raising gun violence. It only helps gangs. Guns don't kill people. The people that utilize the guns to make the kill easier do, when they pull the trigger, accelerating the bullet after aiming the weapon. |
|||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101 Posts: 3991/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| Well, technically bullets kill people. But that's neither here nor there... |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Firearms, your thoughts? |
| | |
