Gun Rights

[Valrez]

Wanted to start up a thread on guns, so here it is.

Discuss gun rights.

Why they might be good and why they might be bad.

Personally, I'm all for gun ownership (open-carry/conceal carry/ etc.). I wouldn't call myself a gun-nut but I do really like guns (shooting them, seeing how they work.... all that good stuff)

My state currently has conceal-carry but I hope soon it can have open-carry. So thats my take on it, whats yours?

[Big Jim P]

I have the right to personal self-defense, whether that necessitates a gun, a knife, my bare hands or a nuclear weapon.

[Shaoyuan]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

[Big Jim P]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

If you are not willing to take personal responsibility for your defense, then you are a slave, and a dependent child. Justice, however is whatever society deems it to be.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Current laws across Ireland are pretty good for now although I would like to see the PSNI drop their sidearms

[Shaoyuan]

A satanist calling me a child, oh the irony.

[Drakon-Qan]

Ban guns. You know that line, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Yeah, that's a crock of bullshit, guns are tools of death, if no one had guns, guns wouldn't be neccesary.

Also, guns are for lazy people. If you're really worried about self-defence, and aren't just using it as an excuse to have the power a gun brings, go take a self-defence course, learn a martial art.

[Dododecapod]

The state is either incompetent or tyrannical. In the former case, it cannot protect you. In the latter, you need protection against it.
The right to defend yourself, and to possess the means to do so, is the second most important one we possess, right after the right to petition for grievance to a neutral court.

[Grays Harbor]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

Personally, I would rather read the headline "Woman defends herself against rapist with handgun", instead of "Man on trial for raping and murdering woman". Defending oneself from criminals is not "vigilante justice", it is self-defense. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way for the police to be at the scene in a matter of nano-seconds to prevent murders, robberies and rapes.

[Big Jim P]

Ban guns. You know that line, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Yeah, that's a crock of bullshit, guns are tools of death, if no one had guns, guns wouldn't be neccesary.

Also, guns are for lazy people. If you're really worried about self-defence, and aren't just using it as an excuse to have the power a gun brings, go take a self-defence course, learn a martial art.

And the bolded is your error.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I have the right to personal self-defense, whether that necessitates a gun, a knife, my bare hands or a nuclear weapon.

If nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

[Shaoyuan]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

Personally, I would rather read the headline "Woman defends herself against rapist with handgun", instead of "Man on trial for raping and murdering woman". Defending oneself from criminals is not "vigilante justice", it is self-defense. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way for the police to be at the scene in a matter of nano-seconds to prevent murders, robberies and rapes.

Because only good people can get guns, right? I'd rather see either of those than 'Virginia Tech gunman kills dozens'. Society is not an arms race, guns just promote instability and violence and places without guns are almost invariably safer than those with them.

[Big Jim P]

Personally, I would rather read the headline "Woman defends herself against rapist with handgun", instead of "Man on trial for raping and murdering woman". Defending oneself from criminals is not "vigilante justice", it is self-defense. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way for the police to be at the scene in a matter of nano-seconds to prevent murders, robberies and rapes.

Because only good people can get guns, right? I'd rather see either of those than 'Virginia Tech gunman kills dozens'. Society is not an arms race, guns just promote instability and violence and places without guns are almost invariably safer than those with them.

And like an anarchist society, all it take is one person with a gun to render it unsafe. Can you make all guns not exist? No, and until you can, I will prefer to meet deadly threat, with deadly force.

[Drakon-Qan]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

Personally, I would rather read the headline "Woman defends herself against rapist with handgun", instead of "Man on trial for raping and murdering woman". Defending oneself from criminals is not "vigilante justice", it is self-defense. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way for the police to be at the scene in a matter of nano-seconds to prevent murders, robberies and rapes.

With perhaps six months of self-defence training, a woman could most likely defeat a rapist quite easily, since they're distracted by their lust, and aren't expecting their 'target' to fight back. Again, a situation where a handgun in unnecessary.

Also, no, I don't believe I am in error. If no civilian owned a gun except perhaps hunters, there would be no need for guns because people would actually have to learn to defend themselves. You claim that you need your handgun for self defence, but how many people actually take it out and practice with it. You can't just pull out a handgun and expect to just be able to shoot a man dead, unless you're a cold heartless bastard.

That's why guns aren't necessary. There are far more effective, non-lethal means of self-defence

[Big Jim P]

I have the right to personal self-defense, whether that necessitates a gun, a knife, my bare hands or a nuclear weapon.

If nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

Be quiet you. I CAN put nukes into pies and/or tacos.

[Risottia]

Discuss gun rights.

As every right, it needs to be regulated properly to avoid abusing it.

Anyway, I don't care a lot for guns. Unless they're muzzle-loaders, 2 lbs of powder minimum.

[Galla-]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

It is a citizen's job to prevent crime, and the state's job to respond to it.

dwi

Firearms safety and marksmanship should be taught in schools, and gun ownership should be encouraged like seatbelt wearing is encouraged. Possibly even legally mandated, but that's going a bit far.

[Shaoyuan]

Because only good people can get guns, right? I'd rather see either of those than 'Virginia Tech gunman kills dozens'. Society is not an arms race, guns just promote instability and violence and places without guns are almost invariably safer than those with them.

And like an anarchist society, all it take is one person with a gun to render it unsafe. Can you make all guns not exist? No, and until you can, I will prefer to meet deadly threat, with deadly force.

In countries with strong gun laws guns are almost unheard of. People like you just have a fetish for the power to kill. One person with a gun is far safer than a whole nation sitting on their guns, looking nervously at their neighbours and just waiting for an excuse to kill somebody.

[Daircoill]

I believe in responsible gun ownership. A rifle or shotgun is good for hunting, and a pistol is good for self defense. There is no need for anyone other than the military or police to own a fully automatic weapon, or for the average Joe to need a concealed firearm. If you live in a society where you need a gun on you at all times for safety maybe instead of perpetuating the violence you should help bring change to the society.
Sure, the bad guys may have automatic weapons but in a realistic scenario by the time you draw a weapon you've either been shot dead or they've held the trigger on their MAC-10 for the three or so seconds it takes to deplete the entire round. People get an unrealistic expectation of how gunfights work thanks to Hollywood movies and videogames (not that I'm against them, I'm just saying you can get shot in the leg in GTA and you can keep fighting. You get shot in the leg in reality you'll likely bleed to death because of the arteries that run through your thigh). The Gunfight at the O.K Corral as possibly one of the most famous gunfights in history only lasted roughly 30 seconds and that was with revolvers that had to be recocked after each shot. The mythology portrays it as a drawn out gunfight where each side could find cover and exchange quips.
Ultimately, if you have a concealed weapon and ever get into a position where you have to use it there is a good chance the situation will have resolved itself by the time you can draw and pick a target. You will either be dead or you won't and your own firearm will only serve as a tool to take revenge. We all like to think of ourselves as action heroes. Few of us are.

[Galla-]

And like an anarchist society, all it take is one person with a gun to render it unsafe. Can you make all guns not exist? No, and until you can, I will prefer to meet deadly threat, with deadly force.

In countries with strong gun laws guns are almost unheard of. People like you just have a fetish for the power to kill. One person with a gun is far safer than a whole nation sitting on their guns, looking nervously at their neighbours and just waiting for an excuse to kill somebody.

Wrong.

I don't recall there being super tons of firearms deaths in Switzerland, where gun ownership is all but mandated by law, and every house owns an assault rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition. You are ignorant. One nation with firearms is far safer than a nation without. When the UK banned pistol ownership, crime rates went up; when the Swiss took their military rifles home, crime rates were reduced or stayed constant.

[Hera Valley]

The state controls defense and justice, not vigilantes. Total ban.

Yeah, tell me how well that's working out. The state's doing such a great job of controlling crime and protecting people. They still teach at most police academies that the citizenry gave up private justice in return for the the protection of an organized police force. What happens when the state fails to keep up its end of the bargain?

This being Independence Day in America, it's an excellent opportunity to dust off that old copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You'll find nowhere that the State grants people the right to self-defense. What you'll find is that the original writers acknowledged that individual liberties are an inherent quality of man, and that the state has no legitimate business infringing unnecessarily on those liberties, be they freedom of speech, the right to freely assemble, or the right of self defense.

Here's a simple refresher course: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Twenty-seven easy-to-read words, even for someone who is the product of the California public education system.

[Dododecapod]

Personally, I would rather read the headline "Woman defends herself against rapist with handgun", instead of "Man on trial for raping and murdering woman". Defending oneself from criminals is not "vigilante justice", it is self-defense. Unless, of course, you can figure out a way for the police to be at the scene in a matter of nano-seconds to prevent murders, robberies and rapes.

With perhaps six months of self-defence training, a woman could most likely defeat a rapist quite easily, since they're distracted by their lust, and aren't expecting their 'target' to fight back. Again, a situation where a handgun in unnecessary.

Also, no, I don't believe I am in error. If no civilian owned a gun except perhaps hunters, there would be no need for guns because people would actually have to learn to defend themselves. You claim that you need your handgun for self defence, but how many people actually take it out and practice with it. You can't just pull out a handgun and expect to just be able to shoot a man dead, unless you're a cold heartless bastard.

That's why guns aren't necessary. There are far more effective, non-lethal means of self-defence

It's not what happened here (Australia). There was never the level of gun ownership here that there is in the States or Canada, but since they banned guns, the crime rate hasn't been affected, murder rates have not gone down, and there has been no increase in people learning how to defend themselves.
People are sheep. They don't have the will or discipline to learn proper self defence. But they CAN learn to use a gun to defend themselves.

[Drakon-Qan]

A sword, knife or axe, even a battle-axe, can't even begin to compare in the amount of death a gun can reap. Don't even try.

Also, agreed. Here in Canada, where owning a gun is illegal unless you have a hunting license, we never see guns. Honestly, you rarely see criminals having them either. I've been mugged, and the guy just used his hands. At worse you'll probably see a knife, which can be easily stopped with a martial arts training.

Also, if you really need some kind of weapon to... herm... compensate, carry a can of mace or something. Non-lethal.

Also, slightly off topic, I find it amusing that in the US, guns are legal and can basically be carried everywhere, but Kindereggs have been banned because they're 'dangerous'.[*]

[Big Jim P]

And like an anarchist society, all it take is one person with a gun to render it unsafe. Can you make all guns not exist? No, and until you can, I will prefer to meet deadly threat, with deadly force.

In countries with strong gun laws guns are almost unheard of. People like you just have a fetish for the power to kill. One person with a gun is far safer than a whole nation sitting on their guns, looking nervously at their neighbours and just waiting for an excuse to kill somebody.

Here's a little secret: I have the power to kill. With a knife, a gun, my bare hands, poison, hiring thugs, any number of other ways. Once more: Until you can make everyone else on the planet incapable of killing, then I prefer to be able to respond in kind.

One more point: I have no desire to kill, outside of self defense, to eat, or mercy.

[Asumbuoy]

I think the perfect balance on gun laws would be to allow a certain amount of usage but not too much. I'm not really sure how to explain my views so I'll put it into points.

1) A person should be aloud an unlimited amount of bolt action and semi-automatic hunting rifles. Also an unlimited amount of shotguns.
2) A person should be aloud a maximum of three concealable, semi-automatic or revolving action weapons, ir. pistols. No machine pistols or sub-machine guns.
3) A person should only be aloud to carry 1 concealed weapon in public and a permit must be issued to do so.
4) Assault rifles may only be kept in government approved gun clubs for monitored usage, they may not be owned privately.
5) Before usage of a firearm, the owner must notify authorities of the planned time of usage, ie. You gotta tell the cops when your going hunting or target shooting in your back yard.
6) Suppressors and sub-sonic bullets may not be owned privately but can be used at government approved gun clubs for monitory usage.