Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Dec 13, '13 at 8:26pm

SportShark

SportShark

1,089 posts

I didn't mean you need ak-47 to defend yourself, and I'm not a criminal, I just chose the username "thematsaplaya" for the cool effect. I've never been arrested and I'm a law abiding citizen.
I certainly agree that not everyone should be allowed to own a gun or have military weapons.
Also, complete gun control, wouldn't solve the problem, it would only hurt people who don't get their guns legally since illegal weapons are easy to obtain.

 

Posted Dec 13, '13 at 8:41pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

I certainly agree that not everyone should be allowed to own a gun or have military weapons.
Also, complete gun control, wouldn't solve the problem, it would only hurt people who don't get their guns legally since illegal weapons are easy to obtain.


Well, that's one thing we agree about. I believe I might have mentioned all of that somewhere else in this thread...maybe not the part about obtaining illegal firearms. Yet it is true. It's easier for Carl Criminal to obtain firearms (especially handguns and automatic weapons) through illegal venues than Law-abiding Larry. Even if we banned the sale of guns to civilians totally, it would be easy to find a gun. Our gov't 'loses' entire shipments of firearms in Mexican drug-war stings gone awry. Guess where a good deal of those show back up? In American gang and drug shootings.
 

Posted Dec 14, '13 at 4:23am

JohnWrot

JohnWrot

1 post

Love the new ad about the Bill of Rights!

A+ Armor Games!

 

Posted Dec 26, '13 at 1:00pm

IceClaw247

IceClaw247

869 posts

The problem with people acquiring fire arms for self-defence in the USA is that it builds up like the USA vs Russia arms race, until one lunatic ends up with one and goes on a mass killing spree; which unfortunately happens fairly regularly. Guns should be only allowed to those who actually need it. People with lots of land who need it to shoot pests, or say a Hunter who gets paid to shoot game. Not people with metal illnesses or normal town people for "self defence" as they say.

 

Posted Dec 26, '13 at 7:56pm

Fiends

Fiends

114 posts

Dumb hippies, weapons are necessary for anyone and if someone wants a gun it's there decision. Ridiculous thread.

 

Posted Dec 27, '13 at 5:04am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,413 posts

Knight

weapons are necessary for anyone

I've lived without one until now and I'm doing just fine. Tell me how they're necessary? Because even for self-defense there are always better alternatives.
 

Posted Dec 28, '13 at 6:09pm

Fiends

Fiends

114 posts

What were guns made for? You're clearly trying to ignite an argument so i'll let you figure it out for yourself.

 

Posted Dec 28, '13 at 6:48pm

SportShark

SportShark

1,089 posts

I disagree with HahiHa for these reasons.
There are not many better alternatives to firearms for SD.
-Tasers are ineffective on people with thick clothing since the barbs on a taser are quite small. They are also ineffective on people under the influence of drugs such as meth. If there is more than one attacker, multiple tasers would be needed.
-Chemical deterents and pepper sprays don't work if the attacker is wearing face protection and they are weak and have a short range.
-Martial Arts are not suitable for the elderly, physically challenged, and obviously, not everyone has the time to become skilled in martial arts. Also martial arts don't help much if the attackers are armed with firearms.

 

Posted Dec 29, '13 at 3:40am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,413 posts

Knight

What were guns made for? You're clearly trying to ignite an argument so i'll let you figure it out for yourself.

Did you do that on purpose? That's not what I asked. You stated guns where necessary for anyone, and I asked why necessary.

There are not many better alternatives to firearms for SD.

Ok, so let's look at guns for SD. If there are multiple attackers, they could overwhelm you as well. Guns in the hands of elderly and physically challenged is not a good idea. And if the others have guns too, you lost. So ok, the alternatives are not great, but so are guns.
 

Posted Jan 19, '14 at 12:29am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,015 posts

Hey guys, Matt here with his opinion (humble or not).

First off, I'm pretty sure Fiends is trolling, and you're better off not feeding the troll. Short, crude opinions are generally a good indicator, along with the limited number of posts. Just saying.

I might as well give my current status. I'm 21 and I own two guns. One is a double-barrel break-open shotgun that was passed down to me. The other is a .45 Carbine with an attached scope, bipod and two spare magazines in a stock holster, which I purchased at a gun show for several hundred dollars and a full background check.

Gun ownership:
I believe people have a right to own guns. Not only is it constitutional, it's a part of capitalism. The flaw is that those against guns constantly ask the same question: "Why do you NEED this? Why do you need a 30-round magazine, fore grip, scope, etc." You may be surprised to learn that all of that is irrelevant. The question is "Why DON'T you need this? Why shouldn't I buy an assault rifle with all the attachments?" That's a part of capitalism: If it's legal, you can buy whatever you want with your money. If you sit down and think about it, there are a lot of things you own that you don't NEED. You have them because you wanted to own them, and now you do.

Assault rifles (and other "military-only" firearms):
I believe a citizen should be allowed to buy an assault rifle for reasons stated above. Sometimes it's just a "thing." Stereotypically, girls like talking about their life, watching specific kind of movies and using specific beauty products. Guys like seeing things explode. I've never held an assault rifle and wondered what it would be like to kill someone with it. I've wondered how high in the air it would throw a cardboard tube if hit with a bullet at close range (the answer is over 10' from ground level). It's just a "thing." It's also an expensive thing.

Self-defense:
The biggest and easiest claim for gun ownership is self-defense. You're walking past an alley and a big nasty dude with a crowbar tells you to hand over the cash or he'll beat you to a pulp. You draw your Glock 19 from a side holster and shoot him 13 times, saving your life and defending everyone else. That is extremely unlikely. The odds of you wandering by an alley and being attacked by a thug in broad daylight are minuscule. But it IS a reason. If I was threatened, I would want a handgun to defend myself. You may be surprised to learn that the average human is not brave enough to attack someone aiming a gun at them.

This rule stretches considerably when applied to assault rifles. "I keep a loaded AR-15 beside my bed because if someone breaks into my house I don't want them touching my wife." In the interest of your own safety, that's a terrible idea. The average assault rifle chambers a .223 cartridge capable of going straight through drywall, plywood, glass, etc. If you open fire in your house, you will do a LOT of property damage and run a literal risk of hitting a neighbor if you have them. Sure it gives you an adrenaline "high" and makes you feel like Chuck Norris on a good day, but come on. It also applies to shotguns. Buckshot does not spread instantly. It will do as much damage as a slug at close range.

"I don't care if I damage my house. I can replace my house but not my life." Come on. Guys I know do not own assault rifles for self-defense. They own them because they are cool and you can blow holes in stuff with them. I know people who use guns for self-defense, at home and away. They carry a semi-automatic handgun and leave it by their bed. People often assume that the rifle is a trump card and it will automatically take down a bad guy. It isn't. You have to know how to use it first.

Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with having an AR-15 beside your bed. It's going to do way more damage (and deafen your wife) and it's much more expensive, but you can.

Kids with guns:
As soon as I was old enough to pick up a gun, my Dad went over gun safety. He took me out to our backyard (we live in the woods) and showed me how to hold one, how to shoot it and how to reload. Before all of that, he explained to me that guns are dangerous and do not EVER play with them. Guns are not toys. NEVER aim one at anything you don't want to shoot, especially a person. Always check a firearm to see if it is loaded before picking it up.

To prove this, my Dad put a buckshot round in his 12-gauge and opened the breach. It scared the crap out of me. We were in the basement and I thought he was going to shoot it right in front of me. He didn't, but I still remember that from 15 years ago, and I still always check a gun when I pick it up.

Here's the thing. If parents and schools went over gun safety when kids were actually kids, gun violence would drop. Forget video games. I played "CoD 4" as soon as it came out and I was underage (stupid me). I shot people with all kinds of guns and it was realistic. Never once did I want to actually try it in real life. Why? Because my Dad was responsible enough to train me to NEVER do that when I was young, and it stuck.

Gun bans to reduce crime:
It doesn't work. It has never worked, ever, at any point in history. One of the few successful gun bans happened in Germany right before Hitler took over. Most of Germany had no interest in slaughtering everyone who wasn't German, but they didn't have a choice. No guns, no freedom, and with enough excellent speeches from Hitler they signed up.

Background checks:
I am okay with background checks. They are not as painful as everyone thinks. Mine took less than an hour and all I had to do was sign the bottom line, and it's good to know who has a few marks on their police record.

Conclusion:
Guns are dangerous. Teach your kids that guns are dangerous. If you want a gun, you can buy a gun if you pass a background check and have the money (if you don't know anything about assault rifles, look up the sticker prices for them. You have to really want one to pay that much). Gun bans will not stop gun violence to any useful extent. The best solution for a bad guy with a gun is, and always will be, a good guy with a gun (including the police). People that love guns will never convince the world that guns are safe, and people that hate guns will never make all of them go away.

And now I'm going to bed. That was a lot of writing.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!