Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » RIP charleston heston
( ) 1 Vote
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327906 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 08:09   |
 |
Ghostshaw
Messages: 709
Registered: September 2006
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Your average criminal won't be able to afford a black market gun anyway...
Anyway I don't think banning weapons in the US would be a good idea. There are just to many guns already in roulation it won't really change anything except that then only the criminals will be armed. Banning weapons only works if you have that policy from the start IMO.
-Ghost-
BlackIntel Administrator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327909 is a reply to message #327901] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 08:18 |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9727
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 16:13 |
Okay, so Goztow, you support people having alarm systems, instead?
Okay, let's compare pricing:
For a watered down alarm system: $112
10 shot .40 S&W pistol: $146
There were guns on that site for < $100, but I really wouldn't feel safe wielding one of them. Though, I'd probably feel safer with a $99 pistol than a $112 alarm system.
Capabilities:
Now, what can you do with that shitty alarm system? Well, hope that it actually works because it doesn't look like it could protect your whole house. I don't know if it comes with stickers or not, which would help it, but it doesn't look like it.
What can you do with that $34 more pistol (or even the $13 cheaper)? You can protect your entire home with the pistol because it's mobile enough that you can grab it and hide (or confront the intruder). You can take the gun outside of your home (granting you can and do have a CCW permit) and protect you when you're on the go. You can use the gun for recreational purposes which, to me, would be fun.
Now the drawbacks to both of these available systems is that if you're away from your house, the protection is pretty much useless. Thankfully, you CAN have home security monitoring services and a better security system, but that's going to cost you considerably more, and if you do have a monitoring system, it'll cost you monthly. In America (at least), you can get ADT which looks to range from $36 to $49 dollars a month. As the monthly cost goes down, the installation cost goes up, too.
Even then, the ADT system doesn't provide you with mobile protection or the recreational abilities of a gun.
The logical thing for me would seem to be to purchase a gun.
|
Considering most people get burglared when they're NOT at home, I'd say your home security system would do a much better job than your pistol. Maybe they'll just steal your weapon as well, if u keep it in your bedroom and you're not at home?
Yes: a half decent security system with movement detectors will cost you a bit more to get it. But it mostly has a preventive value! Most burglars just don't attack houses with a decent security system. Unless you have a picasso hanging in your living room, which I doubt.
If you don't have one but you have a gun instead and you're at home when they come in and you wake up, then you'll still have to pay for repairing your door / window they broke. You won't do that for 100 $ unless u had very friendly and professional burglars  . You'll have to change all your locks because they could have taken a key. Well, unless you managed to shoot him down ofcourse. But then he might go in trial because as far as I know u can only shoot if he's threatening you.
You're right about mobility. But if you get burglared in the road, you'll probably not have the time to draw your weapon unless you're a cow boy who has it in his pocket. Most people will attack you by surprise which has the advantage of you being knocked out before you're able to do anything.
Edit: as for prices: you also need to take in account your firing training lessons at a fire range ofcourse. Though that could also be seen as something recreational.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
[Updated on: Sat, 26 April 2008 08:20] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327911 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 08:29 |
|
|
You still have to pay for broken glass if your alarm system thwarts a robbery, anyway. The thief isn't going to throw money into your window as a sign of respect for being beaten.
I've watched this one series on a TV network here. These two guys case a house they want to burglarize, then the producers of the show talk to the home owner, and if they agree, they put their house up to be burglarized, and in return they get a new, high tech security system. They get their stolen possessions back, too. The one guy, the "thief", breaks into the house when the residents are gone.
There have been plenty of times where the guy is still in the house when the residents return. Granted, they don't encounter the thief, but I'm sure in plenty of cases that this is a possibility. An alarm system isn't going to do you any good at this point.
If you're attacked outside of the home, it's not going to be in a highly populated area unless you get pick-pocketed or someone steals a woman's purse. The attacker is going to get the person in a secluded area, like after hours at a store when an employee is walking to their car. In these cases, the victim would have plenty of time to react... unless they're just that stupid. Even then, the attacker isn't going to be able to instantly demobilize the victim.
I agree it would be smart to have a home alarm system, but most people don't have the money to do it. Guns are relatively inexpensive, and are great if someone ever has to encounter an attacker.
Plus, you still have to concede the recreational abilities of a gun. What can you do with the alarm system, press all the buttons and make the alarm go off? Oh, hours of fun!
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327912 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 08:48 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
An alarm system AND a gun is even more handy, too.
And don't give me the bullshit of "but kids commit suicide with guns!" or "but there's people who use them for bad purposes!". For one, it's easier to catch someone who uses a registered and legal gun.
For two, if some kid brings his parents gun to his school, not only is that the parents fault, but also retarded that the school is too dumb to put up metal detecters and whatnot.
I guarentee you that shit like the Virginia Tech tragedy wouldn't have had near the casualties had any the studants had guns.
A home security system can't quite stop the threat of some kid going nuts. But a gun sure can.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327925 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 11:31 |
|
|
If someone has an agenda, they're just going to ignore the alarm system. Petty thieves won't, sure, but there are people who are ambitious enough to ignore the alarm. Those are the people you really want to have a gun to use against.
My point about the recreation is that we shouldn't get rid of it because the recreation aspect of owning a gun is a huge part of owning one for a lot of people. Just because you don't like the gun doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to use it for recreation.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327936 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 13:51 |
Rocko
Messages: 833
Registered: January 2007
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
okay lets all have a gun because they are fun, never mind the huge amount of danger associated with it.
didn't cho sung and a lot of these school shooting incidents get their weapons from legal gun stores?
Guns are legal now and i rarely see cases of potential murderers and robbers being gunned down by the victim before the crime happened.
and it seems really retarded to think as oblivion does that it would be good idea to have every young retarded college student, or even the rest of the population out there armed with a pistol.
black and proud
[Updated on: Sat, 26 April 2008 13:53] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #327946 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 14:31 |
|
|
| Rocko wrote on Sat, 26 April 2008 16:51 |
okay lets all have a gun because they are fun, never mind the huge amount of danger associated with it.
didn't cho sung and a lot of these school shooting incidents get their weapons from legal gun stores?
Guns are legal now and i rarely see cases of potential murderers and robbers being gunned down by the victim before the crime happened.
and it seems really retarded to think as oblivion does that it would be good idea to have every young retarded college student, or even the rest of the population out there armed with a pistol.
|
I didn't say that there's no responsibility involved with having a gun. Nice job twisting what I say.
I agree that mentally disturbed people shouldn't own guns, and we need better methods to prevent that, but other than that, there should be no waiting period. You should just go in, have your psychological health checked, then walk out with your gun.
The fact that you don't hear cases of that happening doesn't mean shit. You don't hear about it for more than one reason. One reason is that just the sight of a gun is more than enough to scare off a would-be attacker, and nobody reports a failed attack. Another is the fact that the media doesn't want to mention guns in a positive light. You rarely (if ever) hear of the one school shooting where two guys ran to their cars, got their guns, and subdued the shooter (without firing a shot).
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Sat, 26 April 2008 14:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328048 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sun, 27 April 2008 12:08 |
 |
GoArmy44
Messages: 265
Registered: October 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
Guns are legal now and i rarely see cases of potential murderers and robbers being gunned down by the victim before the crime happened.
|
You rarely see cases such as that because the victim is usually the law abiding citizen who under law is not supposed to carry a weapon around. I find it kind of funny that a lot of the major shootings in this country that drew a lot of publicity were in so called "gun free" areas such as schools. It is pretty easy to shoot and kill people when they don't shoot back.
In the state of Oklahoma at least, you have to go through a extensive background check to get a conceal to carry license. Thus if you have any history of mental health problems or were a felon..you don't get the permit. While I don't think the States should give psychiatric exams to get a gun, I do think they should have some kind of system to prevent obvious cases of mental degradation from owning a firearm.
Reconcilia Rem Publicam!
[Updated on: Sun, 27 April 2008 12:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328054 is a reply to message #325353] |
Sun, 27 April 2008 14:03 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
didn't cho sung and a lot of these school shooting incidents get their weapons from legal gun stores?
|
That's actually a fairly good point- but not for the reasons you made it. Here's the problem- there are rather large loopholes in current legislation which, in some places, permit the purchase of firearms given certain conditions are met. In the case of the VT tragedy, the shooter had in fact spent time in an institution- but that fact was not taken into consideration, as he had committed himself. Different states also have different laws regarding whether or not convicted criminals can purchase firearms- in many places, that right is not taken away unless you have been convicted of a violent felony or any domestic offense.
I'm of the opinion that anyone convicted of any felony should not be allowed to purchase a firearm; they gave up all their rights when they chose to violate someone else's rights.
I'm a bit torn about folks who have spent time in an institution, mainly because I know a few people who have and really didn't need to- I'd trust them with my life any day, and wouldn't think twice about handing them a weapon. However, that is highly specific to what sort of mental issue is present- depression in an of itself isn't enough, but things like paranoid schizophrenia, sociopathy, and phychotic tendencies should definitely factor into whether or not someone should be able to go and buy a gun. It isn't quite as cut-and-dried as "they're crazy, take it away," because each person's mind is different. What I do think is that anybody who has known mental health issues should be required, regardless of severity, to submit to a psychological evaluation before being granted a permit to purchase.
Beyond that, the government has absolutely no right to tell any citizen that they may not buy a gun and use it to defend themselves. Any restriction placed on a citizen with a clean record is analogous to presumption of guilt, which contradicts the very foundation of the justice system in this country (innocent until proven guilty). If given no reason to suspect that a person may be a danger to others, it is not the local, state, or federal government's place to interfere with the second amendment.
I'm openly critical of the effectiveness of gun control because I come from a state (New Jersey) that is a prime example of why it doesn't work. NJ is among the hardest states to legally buy a gun in (and getting a CCW permit is even harder), yet it boasts one of the highest if not the highest violent crime rate in the country- and is home to three of the nation's most dangerous cities (Trenton, Camden, and Newark). Do the gangs in those cities give a damn that they aren't supposed to have their guns? No, not at all. Even in supposedly nicer areas, such as Princeton (my home town), there is an increasing gang presence and crime rate even as gun laws grow more and more restrictive. It doesn't take a three-digit IQ to see the connection,and I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that I'm one of the dwindling number of armed citizens in the state.
As for alarms- alarms are wonderful tools, but they are hardly a catch-all solution to crime- or even home invasions. Police response times being what they are (laughable), an alarm is only a deterrent to the easily spooked as it will take way longer than they need to clean your home out for anybody to arrive and do something about it. That's not to say alarms are useless; they are a great way to increase home security and are extremely helpful when you're not around. However, they are no substitute for a good weapon when you are around. I'm a huge proponent of security systems, especially the kind that automatically report any incidents to the authorities, but if you are at home and the police won't respond for fifteen minutes to an hour or more (in some places), that's a very small comfort indeed. A weapon- any weapon, even a baseball bat- increases your chances of staying alive in the face of a person determined to do you harm, but a gun is by far the most effective means of personal protection.
Honestly, I have no objection to less-lethal weapons like tazers, but they are not and never will be a replacement for guns. Not until somebody invents a magical stun beam that knocks its target out cold, guaranteed.
Remember also that the Second Amendment was not ever meant to be changed or removed; like the rest of the Bill of Rights it is an amendment only because it was not written into the original document yet was demanded by an overwhelming majority of the states. Given that it was written during a time when citizens with personal firearms made the difference between a free nation and a colony, I truly believe that there will always be a place for guns in the hands of citizens. It may seem today like the threat of tyranny is remote, but we live in turbulent times- it is far, far better to be armed against threats we have yet to recognize.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328133 is a reply to message #325353] |
Mon, 28 April 2008 10:18 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
You're right- I should rephrase that: I feel a hell of a lot safer than pretty much everybody else in that damned state.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328254 is a reply to message #328249] |
Tue, 29 April 2008 08:59 |
 |
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Most homicide's are unintentional and happen when emotions are running high, when this happens it doesn't matter what type of person you are or how much gun training you have, emotions rule you, you do not rule them and when they take control of you, people suffer or die.
The likely hood of you killing a person is increased when firearms are around and are accessible, this is a well known and provenfact.
The same can't be said when firearms have been removed, the chances of you killing a person is reduced to a great extent when you do not have access to firearms or other weapons of deadly intent, this is also a well known and proven fact among expects in the field.
This doesn't mean, if you remove or ban firearms, homicide in whatever form will stop, but the statistics of homicide with a firearm would drop like a bomb.
I'll myself do not agree with a total gun ban, I was brought up with firewarms in my life and use them every so often for sport.
But firearms that are mag fed, drum fed, belt fed, high rate firing weapons, armour piercing bullets/shells, military sub-machine pistols/weapons, assault rifles and anything else that is a military class weapon and small pistols that can be easy hidden should be banned.
Hunting Rifles, Shotguns, Range firing rifles, pistols for sport shooting, should be allowed, but with very tough rules.
Firearms should be locked up in a metal box, ammo should be locked elsewhere, weapons should never be left loaded.
So, you enforce these rules on a state, how do you remove all the now very legal weapons, for the first month, everyone has a chance to hand them into your local police station, where you are registered and ticked off, anyone who is registered with a firearm and hasn't handed them in after this time, would get a visit from the Police to find out what the story is.
The whole process could take a few years to complete, since there is fewer weapons, crime with firearms, would also be reduced.
Since "people" think they need to protect themselfs from the people who use guns for unlawful reasons, I would allow self-defence weapons like pepper spray be allowed or some other defence weapon that is none-lethal but very effective at disabling a person.
The system is not prefect but it would reduce death by firearms.
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328259 is a reply to message #325353] |
Tue, 29 April 2008 09:44 |
|
|
Perhaps in England most homicides are unintentional. That's certainly not the case in America. It still happens in America, too, but anything can be used as a weapon in the heat of the moment. A knife, a rock, a lamp, an ax, a wrench, fists, etc... Because of such, even if gun murders went down, you'd see a rise in murders by other methods. You can take the cat out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the cat.
Removing firearms would only make it so that criminals are the only ones with guns besides law enforcement and military. That's just what an American like myself wants. I want to be completely defenseless against a tyrannical government and a bunch of assholes who think they deserve my stuff more than I do. What a wonderful society I'd be looking at.
I fully support lethal weapons to be used in self-defense. Once you decide that your rights are more important than someone else's that you attack them, you basically forfeit your own. I wouldn't enjoy killing someone, but if it means preventing some asshole from harming me and my family, then so be it.
I don't actually own a gun. Though, I do have every intention of getting one when I come into the money for the gun itself and the license.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328283 is a reply to message #325353] |
Tue, 29 April 2008 11:39 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Most homicide's are unintentional and happen when emotions are running high, when this happens it doesn't matter what type of person you are or how much gun training you have, emotions rule you, you do not rule them and when they take control of you, people suffer or die.
|
So every person is a potential murderer, given the right trigger? No, I don't buy into that. Certainly, there are circumstances which would cause each and every person to lose control of their emotions. However, it is not true that all capacity for rational thinking disappears when emotion takes over, and it is the choice to follow reason over emotion and regain control which defines the strength of a person's character. Anybody can just let go and allow their emotions to drive them to do horrible things- but knowing the difference between right and wrong and making a conscious decision not to allow that to happen is never beyond our ability.
| Quote: |
The likely hood of you killing a person is increased when firearms are around and are accessible, this is a well known and provenfact.
|
Negative. The liklihood of you killing a person is entirely dependent on whether or not you allow your passions to usurp control from your brain. The temptation to kill will be present or it won't be based on what kind of person you are, not on whether or not you have the tools to make your sick impulses easier to carry out. Even if you're already a killer, having a gun around doesn't make you more likely to kill- it just makes it easier for you to kill. On the other hand, that same gun also makes it easier to prevent death- namely yours, your family's, and that of your fellow human being.
| Quote: |
The same can't be said when firearms have been removed, the chances of you killing a person is reduced to a great extent when you do not have access to firearms or other weapons of deadly intent, this is also a well known and proven fact among expects in the field.
|
"Weapons of deadly intent?" You make it sound as if the presence of a weapon creates intent. I know for damned sure that isn't how it works with my mind, seeing as how I've a growing collection of weapons and haven't once had so much as an inkling of a desire to kill. How can you be so certain that it is true of anybody at all? Where is the evidence that the tool engenders in a person's mind the will to use it? Again, the presence or non-presence of a gun does not make a person more or less of a killer. Either the will to take a human life exists, or it doesn't- based on character.
| Quote: |
This doesn't mean, if you remove or ban firearms, homicide in whatever form will stop, but the statistics of homicide with a firearm would drop like a bomb.
|
Funny, that, seeing as how the states and municipalities with the least restrictive gun laws also seem to have the lowest violent crime rates- with any kind of weapon or lack thereof, not just guns. Coincidence? Not really- the criminal mind is a selfish one, and the most basic selfish human impulse is self-preservation.
| Quote: |
But firearms that are mag fed, drum fed, belt fed, high rate firing weapons, armour piercing bullets/shells, military sub-machine pistols/weapons, assault rifles and anything else that is a military class weapon and small pistols that can be easy hidden should be banned.
|
Oh boy, it's the "assault weapons" ban all over again. Mechanical differences, barring an actual manufacturing defect, do not in any way impact the lethality of a gun. Whether I have a silencer or a flash suppressor or a pistol grip on my rifle does nothing to at all to change the lethality of the bullet that comes out of the muzzle when I pull the trigger.
Fully automatic weapons, which are in an entirely different category, have long been illegal without a specially issued federal permit- and yet we see them used in violent crime all the damned time. What about those two whackos out in California that took on the entire LAPD for hours with drum-fed fully automatic weapons, you say? Guess what: neither of them had said permit. Those weapons were illegally owned. So are the weapons used in most of the gang-related homicides in this country, regardless of type.
On armor-piercing bullets- already illegal. Highly illegal. So are hollow-point rounds in many places, which-if you ask me- is rather silly since they (unlike armor-piercing or even standard ball ammo) have the least potential for pass-through and thus the least potential for collateral damage.
As for those easy-to-hide handguns? Well, they also happen to be a top-rate means of self and home defense. I'm profoundly grateful that you don't get to decide gun policy, because there are an awful lot of people who would be dead right now if you had your way- because you would have taken away the weapon that enabled them to kill or incapacitate their attacker.
| Quote: |
Hunting Rifles, Shotguns, Range firing rifles, pistols for sport shooting, should be allowed, but with very tough rules.
|
I'm wondering how much of this wonderful plan of yours is based on personal preference and how much is rooted in practicality. Something tells me that these weapons are the ones you have an interest in shooting, and hence don't consider to be inherently dangerous. I could be wrong, of course, but It's more than a little suspicious that you'd allow weapons for every use except personal defense.
| Quote: |
Firearms should be locked up in a metal box, ammo should be locked elsewhere, weapons should never be left loaded.
|
Yes, because a gun locked in a metal box with a full clip on board is definitely going to pull itself out and shoot somebody. The only reason the separate storage rule even exists is because some moron somewhere left a loaded gun in an unlocked case and someone else came and did something stupid with it. It doesn't even make sense- there's a pretty huge leap from unlocked to locked, and having to open two different cases to prepare your weapon makes it just that much harder to use it if you need it to prevent... well, you know, your own death. Or do you think that the scum breaking into your house has their gun in a locked case in their backpack, with its ammo out in the glovebox just in case? Here's an example of a rule that reeks of terminal stupid.
Here's my proposal: Keep your sporting weapons locked up away from their ammo- fine. However, keep your defensive weapons loaded and ready in a case that, while securely locked, can be quickly unlocked if you need it- at which point you'd chamber a round from your already loaded mag and be prepared rather than still be fumbling for the ammo when Shady Bob busts down your bedroom door. As long as you don't hand out keys or combinations to people who you wouldn't trust with a gun anyway, you're never going to have a single problem with gun storage safety. Ever.
| Quote: |
So, you enforce these rules on a state, how do you remove all the now very legal weapons, for the first month, everyone has a chance to hand them into your local police station, where you are registered and ticked off, anyone who is registered with a firearm and hasn't handed them in after this time, would get a visit from the Police to find out what the story is.
|
Or, instead of that- to borrow a quote- "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers." The day my state sends police to come collect my guns is the day I cry foul- loudly- and pack up for greener pastures on the other side of the river. For that matter, I'd rather leave the country entirely than continue to live in it after guns were banned. Fortunately, it doesn't look like that will be ahppening any time soon because we have nice groups like the NRA who have the *ahem* political firepower to protect our rights to keep and bear physical firepower.
| Quote: |
The whole process could take a few years to complete, since there is fewer weapons, crime with firearms, would also be reduced.
|
The process would take forever and a day to complete, and since there would be fewer people able to defend themselves adequately, crime would increase quite a bit. Meanwhile, the public- sheep that they usually are- would conveniently forget how much lower crime rates were when they *had* guns, and instead turn to Big Brother security solutions like they've got over in London. Smile for the camera, folks!
| Quote: |
Since "people" think they need to protect themselfs from the people who use guns for unlawful reasons, I would allow self-defence weapons like pepper spray be allowed or some other defence weapon that is none-lethal but very effective at disabling a person.
|
Pepper spray is only useful within knifing distance and tasers can be fired at exactly one target, and still at a very limited range. Both are great ways of dealing with single, unarmed assailants without recourse to lethal means... However, if you run into more than one attacker or *gasp* an assailant with a gun, you're really up shit creek without a paddle. A gun of your own makes a fine paddle in those shitty situations, but since you now don't have one because you're an honest, law-abiding citizen, you're fucked sideways.
Weapons as a means of self-defense, ranked by ability to incapacitate immediately and fully:
1. Gun
2. A friend with a gun
3. Taser
4. Club or Knife
5. Pepper Spray/ Mace. And some folks are resistant to it.
| Quote: |
The system is not prefect but it would reduce death of criminals by firearms.
|
Fixed.
Oh gee, it looks like my cynical streak is showing again.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Tue, 29 April 2008 11:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: RIP charleston heston [message #328306 is a reply to message #328283] |
Tue, 29 April 2008 13:56 |
|
GoArmy44
Messages: 265
Registered: October 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 April 2008 13:39 |
| Quote: |
Most homicide's are unintentional and happen when emotions are running high, when this happens it doesn't matter what type of person you are or how much gun training you have, emotions rule you, you do not rule them and when they take control of you, people suffer or die.
|
So every person is a potential murderer, given the right trigger? No, I don't buy into that. Certainly, there are circumstances which would cause each and every person to lose control of their emotions. However, it is not true that all capacity for rational thinking disappears when emotion takes over, and it is the choice to follow reason over emotion and regain control which defines the strength of a person's character. Anybody can just let go and allow their emotions to drive them to do horrible things- but knowing the difference between right and wrong and making a conscious decision not to allow that to happen is never beyond our ability.
| Quote: |
The likely hood of you killing a person is increased when firearms are around and are accessible, this is a well known and provenfact.
|
Negative. The liklihood of you killing a person is entirely dependent on whether or not you allow your passions to usurp control from your brain. The temptation to kill will be present or it won't be based on what kind of person you are, not on whether or not you have the tools to make your sick impulses easier to carry out. Even if you're already a killer, having a gun around doesn't make you more likely to kill- it just makes it easier for you to kill. On the other hand, that same gun also makes it easier to prevent death- namely yours, your family's, and that of your fellow human being.
| Quote: |
The same can't be said when firearms have been removed, the chances of you killing a person is reduced to a great extent when you do not have access to firearms or other weapons of deadly intent, this is also a well known and proven fact among expects in the field.
|
"Weapons of deadly intent?" You make it sound as if the presence of a weapon creates intent. I know for damned sure that isn't how it works with my mind, seeing as how I've a growing collection of weapons and haven't once had so much as an inkling of a desire to kill. How can you be so certain that it is true of anybody at all? Where is the evidence that the tool engenders in a person's mind the will to use it? Again, the presence or non-presence of a gun does not make a person more or less of a killer. Either the will to take a human life exists, or it doesn't- based on character.
| Quote: |
This doesn't mean, if you remove or ban firearms, homicide in whatever form will stop, but the statistics of homicide with a firearm would drop like a bomb.
|
Funny, that, seeing as how the states and municipalities with the least restrictive gun laws also seem to have the lowest violent crime rates- with any kind of weapon or lack thereof, not just guns. Coincidence? Not really- the criminal mind is a selfish one, and the most basic selfish human impulse is self-preservation.
| Quote: |
But firearms that are mag fed, drum fed, belt fed, high rate firing weapons, armour piercing bullets/shells, military sub-machine pistols/weapons, assault rifles and anything else that is a military class weapon and small pistols that can be easy hidden should be banned.
|
Oh boy, it's the "assault weapons" ban all over again. Mechanical differences, barring an actual manufacturing defect, do not in any way impact the lethality of a gun. Whether I have a silencer or a flash suppressor or a pistol grip on my rifle does nothing to at all to change the lethality of the bullet that comes out of the muzzle when I pull the trigger.
Fully automatic weapons, which are in an entirely different category, have long been illegal without a specially issued federal permit- and yet we see them used in violent crime all the damned time. What about those two whackos out in California that took on the entire LAPD for hours with drum-fed fully automatic weapons, you say? Guess what: neither of them had said permit. Those weapons were illegally owned. So are the weapons used in most of the gang-related homicides in this country, regardless of type.
On armor-piercing bullets- already illegal. Highly illegal. So are hollow-point rounds in many places, which-if you ask me- is rather silly since they (unlike armor-piercing or even standard ball ammo) have the least potential for pass-through and thus the least potential for collateral damage.
As for those easy-to-hide handguns? Well, they also happen to be a top-rate means of self and home defense. I'm profoundly grateful that you don't get to decide gun policy, because there are an awful lot of people who would be dead right now if you had your way- because you would have taken away the weapon that enabled them to kill or incapacitate their attacker.
| Quote: |
Hunting Rifles, Shotguns, Range firing rifles, pistols for sport shooting, should be allowed, but with very tough rules.
|
I'm wondering how much of this wonderful plan of yours is based on personal preference and how much is rooted in practicality. Something tells me that these weapons are the ones you have an interest in shooting, and hence don't consider to be inherently dangerous. I could be wrong, of course, but It's more than a little suspicious that you'd allow weapons for every use except personal defense.
| Quote: |
Firearms should be locked up in a metal box, ammo should be locked elsewhere, weapons should never be left loaded.
|
Yes, because a gun locked in a metal box with a full clip on board is definitely going to pull itself out and shoot somebody. The only reason the separate storage rule even exists is because some moron somewhere left a loaded gun in an unlocked case and someone else came and did something stupid with it. It doesn't even make sense- there's a pretty huge leap from unlocked to locked, and having to open two different cases to prepare your weapon makes it just that much harder to use it if you need it to prevent... well, you know, your own death. Or do you think that the scum breaking into your house has their gun in a locked case in their backpack, with its ammo out in the glovebox just in case? Here's an example of a rule that reeks of terminal stupid.
Here's my proposal: Keep your sporting weapons locked up away from their ammo- fine. However, keep your defensive weapons loaded and ready in a case that, while securely locked, can be quickly unlocked if you need it- at which point you'd chamber a round from your already loaded mag and be prepared rather than still be fumbling for the ammo when Shady Bob busts down your bedroom door. As long as you don't hand out keys or combinations to people who you wouldn't trust with a gun anyway, you're never going to have a single problem with gun storage safety. Ever.
| Quote: |
So, you enforce these rules on a state, how do you remove all the now very legal weapons, for the first month, everyone has a chance to hand them into your local police station, where you are registered and ticked off, anyone who is registered with a firearm and hasn't handed them in after this time, would get a visit from the Police to find out what the story is.
|
Or, instead of that- to borrow a quote- "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers." The day my state sends police to come collect my guns is the day I cry foul- loudly- and pack up for greener pastures on the other side of the river. For that matter, I'd rather leave the country entirely than continue to live in it after guns were banned. Fortunately, it doesn't look like that will be ahppening any time soon because we have nice groups like the NRA who have the *ahem* political firepower to protect our rights to keep and bear physical firepower.
| Quote: |
The whole process could take a few years to complete, since there is fewer weapons, crime with firearms, would also be reduced.
|
The process would take forever and a day to complete, and since there would be fewer people able to defend themselves adequately, crime would increase quite a bit. Meanwhile, the public- sheep that they usually are- would conveniently forget how much lower crime rates were when they *had* guns, and instead turn to Big Brother security solutions like they've got over in London. Smile for the camera, folks!
| Quote: |
Since "people" think they need to protect themselfs from the people who use guns for unlawful reasons, I would allow self-defence weapons like pepper spray be allowed or some other defence weapon that is none-lethal but very effective at disabling a person.
|
Pepper spray is only useful within knifing distance and tasers can be fired at exactly one target, and still at a very limited range. Both are great ways of dealing with single, unarmed assailants without recourse to lethal means... However, if you run into more than one attacker or *gasp* an assailant with a gun, you're really up shit creek without a paddle. A gun of your own makes a fine paddle in those shitty situations, but since you now don't have one because you're an honest, law-abiding citizen, you're fucked sideways.
Weapons as a means of self-defense, ranked by ability to incapacitate immediately and fully:
1. Gun
2. A friend with a gun
3. Taser
4. Club or Knife
5. Pepper Spray/ Mace. And some folks are resistant to it.
| Quote: |
The system is not prefect but it would reduce death of criminals by firearms.
|
Fixed.
Oh gee, it looks like my cynical streak is showing again.
|
Nicely put.
| Quote: |
5. Pepper Spray/ Mace. And some folks are resistant to it.
|
Lol Quagmire.
Reconcilia Rem Publicam!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 18 22:32:10 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01257 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
