Gun Control

Title should be enough. What are your views on gun control regulation?

Member of the NRA. 'Nuff said.

They should be restricted to farms and shit where they're actually necessary, (i.e. putting down seriously injured/sick animals)

NRA member over here.

It's such a difficult topic to answer because of the following train of thought:

Guns are good to protect yourself from the psychos out there. But in letting you have a gun, who's to say you won't turn out to be that psycho? You can do as much testing as you want before letting someone have a gun. But there's no telling what will happen down the road that will completely change you. But without that protection, you're at an inherent disadvantage in those situations. Even with heavy gun control laws, people will find a way to get their hands on it...like everything else that is illegal.

From an overhead perspective, it would probably seem better to restrict firearms relatively strictly. Even though people will get their hands on them, not nearly as many people will. From a citizen's perspective, you want as much protection as possible.

So I don't really know. I do know that there needs to be a fair restriction at least.

The way I see it Zero, if there aren't as many guns around, there is a far lower chance of some lunatic getting their hands on one. Of course it will still happen, but it can't possible happen as much if guns are restricted.

At the same time, putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding (keyword, here) citizens makes it less likely for said lunatics to do anything publicly.

Raz wrote:

The way I see it Zero, if there aren't as many guns around, there is a far lower chance of some lunatic getting their hands on one. Of course it will still happen, but it can't possible happen as much if guns are restricted.

I addressed that as well. I definitely agree with some restriction, I just don't know to what point.

Prince Doebler wrote:

At the same time, putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding (keyword, here) citizens makes it less likely for said lunatics to do anything publicly.

That is true and I've thought that as well. But what if that law-abiding citizen turned into a lunatic based on future events? It can happen to anyone. There's only so much anyone can handle before snapping. For the most part, it probably won't happen though.

Strider Zero wrote:

Raz wrote:

The way I see it Zero, if there aren't as many guns around, there is a far lower chance of some lunatic getting their hands on one. Of course it will still happen, but it can't possible happen as much if guns are restricted.

I addressed that as well. I definitely agree with some restriction, I just don't know to what point.

Yeah, yours was slightly different in my eyes, I just thought I would expand it a little.

Prince Doebler wrote:

At the same time, putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding (keyword, here) citizens makes it less likely for said lunatics to do anything publicly.

How do you figure?

Another major problem is the kids getting their hands on the guns. I'm not sure how it is in different countries, but there are a few instances a year in the U.S with this problem. Of course that's not an inherent problem of having a gun, but more being an idiot on where you keep it and how discreetly you keep it from your kid. But that still could also be avoided with some restriction.

The way I figure is this: if there is a ban/restriction on guns, people who want to commit crimes with them will get those weapons from the black market. If not, that means that the citizens will have them in their hands and will be ready to rise to the defense of their home/city.

As far as what restrictions should be in place, I can't say too much in the realm of who should and shouldn't be permitted to have them. However in terms of the weapons themselves, I will say that whatever restrictions apply to the local military should apply to the citizens as well.

^agreed.

Strider Zero wrote:

Another major problem is the kids getting their hands on the guns. I'm not sure how it is in different countries, but there are a few instances a year in the U.S with this problem. Of course that's not an inherent problem of having a gun, but more being an idiot on where you keep it and how discreetly you keep it from your kid. But that still could also be avoided with some restriction.

That is indeed another issue with having guns available to the general population.

Prince Doebler wrote:

The way I figure is this: if there is a ban/restriction on guns, people who want to commit crimes with them will get those weapons from the black market. If not, that means that the citizens will have them in their hands and will be ready to rise to the defense of their home/city.

As far as what restrictions should be in place, I can't say too much in the realm of who should and shouldn't be permitted to have them. However in terms of the weapons themselves, I will say that whatever restrictions apply to the local military should apply to the citizens as well.

You say that, but if they aren't legal there will be less of them, the price of them will skyrocket, they will be much harder to come by so I doubt even two thirds, if not more, of the people who would use them to commit crimes would have acquiring one as an option, black market or no. That's great and all, citizens being armed to defend their country and each other, butif a person wants to shoot someone, they can do it faster than someone else can react to it.

Going back tot he black market, if there are in fact a lot of guns around (ie, if they're legal to own) they are much easier to acquire by someone via the black market so restriction means shit all unless it's total or near enough to total.

Finally on the population having access to military weapons, why on earth would that be a good idea? Arming people with rifles and handguns is stupid, arming them with machine guns and sniper rifles is fucking retarded. Why would citizens have a use for those sorts of fire arms in every day life? Are they planning an assault? This would only make sense if the entire population was conscripted in the army like Switzerland, and even then you have to question the necessity of it.

You underestimate the gangs and drug cartels, especially in our neighboring country, Mexico. They hold more power in many locations around here. This makes them a threat to the peace in more ways than you can imagine.

While they can shoot someone if they want to, they're less likely to get away with it. Being proactive is better than being passive, even if it is after the event occurs.

Also, I should have clarified my comments about the military. I meant what is available to the common soldier. In America, not all soldiers get access to automatic weapons, or things like that. Most of them are restricted to the M16 or the M4 which only fire single shots or 3-round bursts. If automatic weapons are restricted from the military, then the same should apply for citizens. That's the only logical concern.

Only a handful of citizens would have a daily need for those weapons, and those would be hunters. Many others, like myself, take guns to target ranges and shoot for recreation. The rest have them to keep their families safe, should the need ever arise when their house gets broken into.

Prince Doebler wrote:

You underestimate the gangs and drug cartels, especially in our neighboring country, Mexico. They hold more power in many locations around here. This makes them a threat to the peace in more ways than you can imagine.

While they can shoot someone if they want to, they're less likely to get away with it. Being proactive is better than being passive, even if it is after the event occurs.

I really don't think I underestimate them at all, in fact I'd like to see some factual evidence to back up that claims of Mexican drug lords aren't just more than propaganda.

Quote :

Also, I should have clarified my comments about the military. I meant what is available to the common soldier. In America, not all soldiers get access to automatic weapons, or things like that. Most of them are restricted to the M16 or the M4 which only fire single shots or 3-round bursts. If automatic weapons are restricted from the military, then the same should apply for citizens. That's the only logical concern.

Only a handful of citizens would have a daily need for those weapons, and those would be hunters. Many others, like myself, take guns to target ranges and shoot for recreation. The rest have them to keep their families safe, should the need ever arise when their house gets broken into.

My mistake then. You would certainly think that if the military don't hand them out to soldiers citizens have absolutely no business having them.

Raz wrote:

I really don't think I underestimate them at all, in fact I'd like to see some factual evidence to back up that claims of Mexican drug lords aren't just more than propaganda.

I don't think I made my point clear again. I should have focused on their resourcefulness. The point I tried to drive home was that even with a ban/restriction on weapons in the U.S., that's still only one country. Mexico still has other sources to acquire these weapons. A ban/restriction wouldn't disarm your enemies. It'd disarm yourself. My mistake.

Raz wrote:

My mistake then. You would certainly think that if the military don't hand them out to soldiers citizens have absolutely no business having them.

Again, that was my mistake. I didn't really emphasize the mandates on individual soldiers. When I said military, I meant it to be more pressed on the individuals who serve, not the military as a whole. Heck, that's the way I view the Armed Forces in general.

Prince Doebler wrote:

Raz wrote:

I really don't think I underestimate them at all, in fact I'd like to see some factual evidence to back up that claims of Mexican drug lords aren't just more than propaganda.

I don't think I made my point clear again. I should have focused on their resourcefulness. The point I tried to drive home was that even with a ban/restriction on weapons in the U.S., that's still only one country. Mexico still has other sources to acquire these weapons. A ban/restriction wouldn't disarm your enemies. It'd disarm yourself. My mistake.

Well what does that have to do with gun laws in the US? Are you worried about a Mexican invasion? Better watch out for that King of England while you're at it.

I'm not scared of Mexican invasions, per se. I am concerned about the criminal activity, not just of the cartel, but in general.

This is one of the most shameless and digusting displays of racism i've seen, I was waiting for you to comment in a way that you were somehow miconstrued. The fact is there's probably at least a few ethnic minorites here on this board, and you'd probably be making assumptions about them and there families because they looked mexican. Would the context be different if they were Christian Mexicans?

The fact you can ever talk about morals and then display such racist views is ridiculous. Also you do realise Jesus himself would've most likely had some tan to. Good job at the time he wasn't wearing a sombrero.

Also:
Matthew 7

Oh yeah and you literally made someone here physically sick with your statements. If anyone was wondering why i bothered to pipe up. I'm not going to stand idly by when such disgusting comments are hurting people i care about.

Seriously why the fuck were these comments allowed to be said and continue for this long?

My comments were not meant to be racist. I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes.

I have no problem with someone owning a gun but, they should do more backround checks on someone. The only problem i can see is that the main people theyd target for background checks is minorities.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=250643583

That's really messed up.

America really needs to do something about this. I don't know if he had those weapons legally or not, but either way how did a guy who'd do that get this shit. The fact he had body armour is fucked up to. I don't see a reason for those to be available to the public.

He DID get all those weapons through legal means.

I'm sure nothing will happen to gun laws though. In fact, they might even get loosened because "this might have been averted if the rest of the theater was carrying guns too and was able to shoot him".

Yes, I've already seen that argument thrown around.