AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Firearms and whatnot

122 21201
jdoggparty
offline
jdoggparty
5,860 posts
Nomad

To starty this debate, lets say that we're starting up a brand new country with no existing laws or cultural prejudices on the issue. This is because it is a much different arguement if you take the U.S., than if you take somewhere like Britain. It prevents arguments revolving around destroying the thousands of jobs in the industry too.

So. Brand new country. What are its gun laws going to be?

Should people have the right to own guns? If so, should they be securely locked away in a cabinet until the country is invaded, or should people be allowed to carry them on the street? Should people be allowed handguns but not assault rifles?

  • 122 Replies
Darkroot
offline
Darkroot
2,763 posts
Peasant

Should people have the right to own guns?


No there isn't a point of having guns and the consequences are too high. It only takes one manic to kill at least 20 people. Training and being in the military won't help since the only thing it does is makes your more proficient and less likely to hurt yourself.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

No there isn't a point of having guns and the consequences are too high


How about protection for yourself, your family, and your country as a whole? Compared to the small consequences, I would take it.

It only takes one manic to kill at least 20 people


Great, give one or two of those twenty people a gun and you saved twenty lives!

Training and being in the military won't help since the only thing it does is makes your more proficient and less likely to hurt yourself.


I would assume it would make you far more likely to hit what you are aiming at, which tends to be beneficial were you would need to use this skill.
CommanderDude7
offline
CommanderDude7
4,689 posts
Nomad

One sane person can kill over 20 people with a car and yet cars are not restricted because people know how to use them just as they do with guns.

Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

Why do you think I would agree?
If, in a theoretical situation, gun ownership had NO affect on crime WHATSOEVER, I'm sure you would agree that guns should not be restricted.

You seem smart and I know you understand the point Im making. Why dont you tell me the point Im making and Im sure I will understand exactly what your issue was because you didnt actually say.
Say what you mean :/ The second time your point made perfect sense.

Im sorry to hear that you choose to debate by purposely ignoring the humour in my comment and then using my comment to make a counter argument that was very overgeneralised.
I thought I undergeneralized it. Regardless, I missed the humor. So you have no response to Nemo's argument, then?

As you said, we are arguing differently. I would agree that we are at this point parallel. I'm going for higher. I don't seek a clash of opinion, but a greater mutual understanding of guns, gun rights and the human condition. Because arguing won't help anyone.

If you want my opinion: Nemo's right, you're wrong, power to the people.
Darkroot
offline
Darkroot
2,763 posts
Peasant

How about protection for yourself, your family, and your country as a whole? Compared to the small consequences, I would take it.


Protection from what? Another person with a gun, he wouldn't have a gun if they weren't allowed to be carried. Thus you really have to be worried about people carrying knifes or just plain old fists. The lethality of a gun is pretty high. I would rather get punched in the face repeatedly then shot in the head. People do stupid things especially if they are not sane or angry. I would rather those people have less lethal weapons.

Great, give one or two of those twenty people a gun and you saved twenty lives!


The manic I was referring to was Charles Whitman who snipped people. Unless everyone was carrying a sniper rifle it wouldn't have done much good. Also untrained nervous people shooting one another? Sound like that will turn out well.

One sane person can kill over 20 people with a car and yet cars are not restricted because people know how to use them just as they do with guns.


Yeah too bad that a car isn't a weapon for most people and it doesn't travel 800m/s and is usually really big. A gun on the other-hand is a weapon that is only good for shooting deadly projectiles at high speeds and easy concealable. You can make anything into a weapon but a gun is already one. Why don't we make anything sharp illegal it can be used a weapon is what your logic is pointing at. People understand that there are risks with cars. But we accept it and it is heavily monitored. You can't just drive over 20 people and get away with it easily. But gun can easily kill 20 people in anyplace and get away.

Look at your gun crimes statistic and tell me it's fine. Your a developed country and yet your number 4.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Protection from what?


Other people, invasion, government, whatever you need really.

Another person with a gun, he wouldn't have a gun if they weren't allowed to be carried


Since that works SOOO well with marijuana... If you make guns illegally, then only criminals will have guns. Basically, you would be arming the criminals.

Another thing, couldn't he just kill you with a knife or practically any other object, but that would give the advantage to the larger person, would it not? Guns act as equalizers, the big burglar breaking into your house and raping your wife or whatever could be defeated simply by your wife drawing a gun. The burglar seas a gun, then simply runs away.

The manic I was referring to was Charles Whitman who snipped people. Unless everyone was carrying a sniper rifle it wouldn't have done much good. Also untrained nervous people shooting one another? Sound like that will turn out well.


It would if one of them got lucky. And this just shows you what one criminal would be able to do, especially well if guns were illegal. If no civilian has the ability to fight back, then they are helpless and must wait for a slow coming police car to come and protect them, in a situation when they would all be killed easily. A gun gives them a chance.

A gun on the other-hand is a weapon that is only good for shooting deadly projectiles at high speeds and easy concealable


So like a knife, shank, or fist? If you wanted someone dead, and were going to conceal the weapon, then anything works just as well.

Why don't we make anything sharp illegal it can be used a weapon is what your logic is pointing at.


Actually that is what your logic is pointing at...

People understand that there are risks with cars


People accept that there are risks involved with guns.

But we accept it and it is heavily monitored


Just like guns, what are you getting at?

You can't just drive over 20 people and get away with it easily. But gun can easily kill 20 people in anyplace and get away.


Umm when was the last time this happened? As far as I know, every time someone shot twenty people they got caught.

Look at your gun crimes statistic and tell me it's fine. Your a developed country and yet your number 4.


It is also one of the largest and heavily populated countries. Sociological factors such as overpopulation in places like New York and other large cities. More people, more crowded cities, thus more crimes of EVERY kind, not just gun crimes.
Darkroot
offline
Darkroot
2,763 posts
Peasant

Other people, invasion, government, whatever you need really.


The only reason to have a gun against other people is if those people also have guns. Thus making them illegal will neutralize that mostly. Invasion for what? Like a pistol will do much against a fully armed solider with armor. What happened to by the people for the people?


Since that works SOOO well with marijuana... If you make guns illegally, then only criminals will have guns. Basically, you would be arming the criminals.


Criminal with guns. Really? Did you never hear about robocop?

Another thing, couldn't he just kill you with a knife or practically any other object, but that would give the advantage to the larger person, would it not? Guns act as equalizers, the big burglar breaking into your house and raping your wife or whatever could be defeated simply by your wife drawing a gun. The burglar seas a gun, then simply runs away.


Guns as equalizer? So in pointing a gun and shooting people requires no skill now? Yeah, or he sees gun punches her in the face (or draws his own) takes gun and shoots her. That's like giving him a gun or an excuse to us his own.

It would if one of them got lucky. And this just shows you what one criminal would be able to do, especially well if guns were illegal. If no civilian has the ability to fight back, then they are helpless and must wait for a slow coming police car to come and protect them, in a situation when they would all be killed easily. A gun gives them a chance.


Yes from a covered position a civilian will snipe him in the head with a pistol. Make total sense, why do snipers even exist if everyone can do that? Yeah but he wouldn't have a gun if they were illegal.

So like a knife, shank, or fist? If you wanted someone dead, and were going to conceal the weapon, then anything works just as well.


Oh of course. Your a deadly 10th level ninja that just throws knives at 800m/s of course you wouldn't need it. Everyone else would rather have a enemy with a knife than a gun. Since were not ninjas.

Actually that is what your logic is pointing at...


...uhhh not it's not. What is something else that is just ranged weapon that goes at 800m/s and can be used repeatedly?

People accept that there are risks involved with guns.


I would bet that the minority of citizens would share that view.

Just like guns, what are you getting at?


Really there are policemen that stalk people with guns to make sure they aren't doing something bad? Does you gun shoot out bullet etched with your serial number?

Umm when was the last time this happened? As far as I know, every time someone shot twenty people they got caught.


Apparently a lot go look thought google. Yeah but those people don't care they just want to kill people and themselves didn't you read the wiki on Charles Whitman?

It is also one of the largest and heavily populated countries. Sociological factors such as overpopulation in places like New York and other large cities. More people, more crowded cities, thus more crimes of EVERY kind, not just gun crimes.


Excuses China is even more overpopulated and in Japan you live in a tiny bedroom. Yeah but there wouldn't be as many GUN CRIMES if people weren't carrying around guns.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

The only reason to have a gun against other people is if those people also have guns


So if some gargantuan person breaks into your house and starts raping your daughter, using a large cudgel as his only weapon, you just attempt to punch him in the face? I personally would grab my shotgun.

Thus making them illegal will neutralize that mostly


How? The criminals will have guns still. I don't think criminals will follow that "Only use guns against people who have guns" rule that you made up in your own head.

Invasion for what?


A foreign invasion of some sort. Guerrilla warfare seems to work well in that situation.

Like a pistol will do much against a fully armed solider with armor.


It seems to have worked pretty **** well against our fully armored soldiers fighting what could be considered citizens in Iraq, doesn't it?

What happened to by the people for the people?


Places get taken over, mostly without the people even noticing. Just look an Nazi Germany. Hard times and a Charismatic leader was elected and given power, way to much power, and screwed up the nation. Why couldn't that happen to America?

Criminal with guns. Really? Did you never hear about robocop?


Are you screwing with me now? I can't tell. But that brings up another subject, why would you let a select group of people have guns, but not any one else? How hard would it be for a police man to be a corrupt robber? We have seen plenty of examples of this in other countries, it could easily happen here.

So in pointing a gun and shooting people requires no skill now?


Why would you need to shoot? You just pull out a gun and no one wants to screw with you. That gargantuan rapist I mentioned earlier would get the hell out of your house if you pulled a gun on him, weather you could use it or not.

And even then, you would think someone who never even touched a gun would at least be able to hit a human sized target from a room length away, five or so feet, especially with a weapon like a shotgun...

Yeah, or he sees gun punches her in the face (or draws his own) takes gun and shoots her


This guy didn't have a gun, remember? And even then, why would he shoot her? That would be basically saying "Ok, now you can kill me if you want!" If you are pointing a gun at him, and are logical enough, then how in hell would he kill your daughter before you did something about it? If he cared anything for his own life, he would comply.

That's like giving him a gun or an excuse to us his own.


So he can draw, aim, and shoot his own gun before you can pull the trigger on your own? Not to mention he has the proverbial balls to do this, and a loaded gun in a place he can get to easy even though he is surprised and preoccupied?

Yes from a covered position a civilian will snipe him in the head with a pistol


Or "Holly ****! Jimmy just got shot! Look in an obvious sniper position and charge the building, or take cover or some thing!" And besides, why would they only have pistols? Something like 2/3 cars in Montana have a hunting rifle or shotgun in their car, which WOULD be able to take a sniper from his position if there is nineteen against one.

Yeah but he wouldn't have a gun if they were illegal.


Yes, he would. A professional sniper with any skill could easily smuggle a rifle into the country. And why do we have such a BIG FRICKEN DRUG PROBLEM if that logic works?

Oh of course. Your a deadly 10th level ninja that just throws knives at 800m/s of course you wouldn't need it. Everyone else would rather have a enemy with a knife than a gun. Since were not ninjas.


Haha. Funneh. You do realize that people were killed long before guns were invented? A concealed knife against an unarmed opponent who are both reasonably normal sized males and the one with a knife wins. Or are you going to matrix the knife, since they are apparently such a weak weapon that is not worth mentioning?

...uhhh not it's not. What is something else that is just ranged weapon that goes at 800m/s and can be used repeatedly?


Why does it matter if it can go 800m/s? If something goes even fifty miles per hour, you are unlikely to do anything about it. And yes, how about a tazer? Electricity travels rather fast, and it can be used repeatedly. I don't see what that has to do with anything though.

Really there are policemen that stalk people with guns to make sure they aren't doing something bad? Does you gun shoot out bullet etched with your serial number?


Do police men stalk everyone with a car to make sure they aren't doing something bad? Does a random hit-and-run victim leave it's cereal number in the corps's skull? If you want to kill someone with a car, you probably are not going to do it in plane sight.

Apparently a lot go look thought google. Yeah but those people don't care they just want to kill people and themselves didn't you read the wiki on Charles Whitman?


Everyone I found got caught. And Charles Whitman got caught, didn't he? If so, we should ban cars, since he could have killed just as many people with a car bomb, and ban planes, we have seen how many people a suicide bomber with a plane can do, have we not?

Excuses China is even more overpopulated and in Japan you live in a tiny bedroom. Yeah but there wouldn't be as many GUN CRIMES if people weren't carrying around guns.


You know what is interesting? Though we are #4 in gun violence according to your source, also from your source we are also only @24 in murders according to your sight. So may I ask mister "Knives are useless", how do those people die if guns don't kill them? Do looks kill in those places? No? Huh. Maybe those places are filled with the "10th level ninjas" you were referring to? No? Oh, maybe it is that guns don't kill people, people kill people?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

The only reason to have a gun against other people is if those people also have guns.


Not really. A gun can be used to defend yourself from someone armed with a knife.

Criminal with guns. Really? Did you never hear about robocop?


I have never watched robocop, but I have heard of marijuana and the fact that marijuana is still an issue despite it being illegal shows me that criminals don't care to obay the law.

Guns as equalizer? So in pointing a gun and shooting people requires no skill now? Yeah, or he sees gun punches her in the face (or draws his own) takes gun and shoots her. That's like giving him a gun or an excuse to us his own.


If guns were truly that infective, then we wouldn't be here debating them? I mean, you pull the trigger. It's that easy. Punching someone in the face and stealing their gun, that's a different story.

Trust me, arguing that "someone might take your gun from you and shoot you," is just plain wrong.

Yes from a covered position a civilian will snipe him in the head with a pistol. Make total sense, why do snipers even exist if everyone can do that? Yeah but he wouldn't have a gun if they were illegal.


I'll agree that even if one of the citizens present did have a gun, it would not have done them much good. I'll give you that one. However, them having a gun would not have made the situation any worse.

Remember, not all gun crimes happen through sniper rifles in towers. When someone uses a gun while in the open, their only immunity to guns are the laws keeping them out of the soon-to-be victim's hands.

Oh of course. Your a deadly 10th level ninja that just throws knives at 800m/s of course you wouldn't need it. Everyone else would rather have a enemy with a knife than a gun. Since were not ninjas.


It doesn't matter if it's a speeding bullet, a blade, or a slow killing poison. They all kill. The only thing you have proved is that guns are effective. Well, if someone wants to defend their home and family from a burglar, then they ought to be effective! Remember, guns can be used to defend the good as much as they are used by offenders.

Apparently a lot go look thought google. Yeah but those people don't care they just want to kill people and themselves didn't you read the wiki on Charles Whitman?


Yeah, I'm sure there have been people who went around stabbing people to death. Guns can be abused. Understand that it's very uncommon for someone to use a gun to murder 20 people. This is why such events are big news.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Actually, I just realized something. Prohibiting guns will work!

Instead of pulling a gun on the next lunatic I see, I'll just yell "Sniper, no sniping!" Come on, say it with me. We need to all say it together so he can here us!

"Sniper, no sniping! Sniper, NO sniping!"

Darkroot
offline
Darkroot
2,763 posts
Peasant

I really don't have time to argue with both of you (maybe one of you can tear yourself away from your ideals and work another angle?).

A foreign invasion of some sort. Guerrilla warfare seems to work well in that situation.


You have to be joking.

It seems to have worked pretty **** well against our fully armored soldiers fighting what could be considered citizens in Iraq, doesn't it?


OH I'm so stupid of course! They all had pistols that shot armor piercing rounds. Of course!

Places get taken over, mostly without the people even noticing. Just look an Nazi Germany. Hard times and a Charismatic leader was elected and given power, way to much power, and screwed up the nation. Why couldn't that happen to America?


So you don't trust your government and if they didn't go along with your ideals you would shoot people?

Or "Holly ****! Jimmy just got shot! Look in an obvious sniper position and charge the building, or take cover or some thing!" And besides, why would they only have pistols? Something like 2/3 cars in Montana have a hunting rifle or shotgun in their car, which WOULD be able to take a sniper from his position if there is nineteen against one.


Oh and you would be leading the charge against a professional sniper?

Haha. Funneh. You do realize that people were killed long before guns were invented? A concealed knife against an unarmed opponent who are both reasonably normal sized males and the one with a knife wins. Or are you going to matrix the knife, since they are apparently such a weak weapon that is not worth mentioning?


Yeah but you can easily defend yourself from a knife than a gun. You can't run away from guns.

Yes, he would. A professional sniper with any skill could easily smuggle a rifle into the country. And why do we have such a BIG FRICKEN DRUG PROBLEM if that logic works?


Oh now any sniper is a professional smuggler? I don't think I even mentioned drugs. Your the one fixated on them.

Not really. A gun can be used to defend yourself from someone armed with a knife.


and so you shoot and kill him?

It doesn't matter if it's a speeding bullet, a blade, or a slow killing poison. They all kill. The only thing you have proved is that guns are effective. Well, if someone wants to defend their home and family from a burglar, then they ought to be effective! Remember, guns can be used to defend the good as much as they are used by offenders.


Wow, so the first thing you do when a burglar is robing your house it to take out your gun and shoot him?

Actually, I just realized something. Prohibiting guns will
work!


So? I live in Canada and I almost never hear about gun violence. Most of it is from the news about America.

Instead of pulling a gun on the next lunatic I see, I'll just yell "Sniper, no sniping!" Come on, say it with me. We need to all say it together so he can here us!

"Sniper, no sniping! Sniper, NO sniping!"


I agree next time I see a robber I'll go;

Yo, you robbing my home
I'll teach you to leave me alone
each of my guns is deadly
but you stole my guns throughtly
now you aim my guns at me
but I pull out my guns see
and I shoot you in the head
your now dead

Anyway I'm done. I can see this is a sensitive issue with you and obviously I don't' understand the logic of it.
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

If, in a theoretical situation, gun ownership had NO affect on crime WHATSOEVER, I'm sure you would agree that guns should not be restricted.


Ok lets talk theory for a moment. In theory if the whole world was responsible enough we would have absolutely no need to walk around with guns or any weapons at all. Nice theory huh?
We were not talking about this tho. What I am talking about is... why does the USA have a higher homicide rate due to gun crime and the UK doesnt? I guess if we were to follow your reasoning then we should be allowed to drink or take drugs and drive in a "theoretical" situation that drinking or taking drugs had NO effect on crime WHATSOEVER, I'm sure you would agree that drink/drug driving should not be restricted? Because by your logic people should have the freedom to enforce...
power to the people.
...etc
We both know that the human race doesnt work like this. AND in an ideal world we wouldnt need weapons. So Im right... your wrong... and I would like to know your opinion on the issue at hand, not your opinion on how I make my opinion.

If you want my opinion: Nemo's right, you're wrong, power to the people.


Thats Nemo's opinion, not yours.

Do you believe that power to the people means a right for civilians to carry guns as they see fit? If so then my drink/drug driving analogy shows the fallacy of your guns are a right argument and my world without guns theory would be a much more comfortable world to live in, right. How about a world where people dont worry about driving and are actually responsible with drugs.

Yeah but there wouldn't be as many GUN CRIMES if people weren't carrying around guns.


Exactly.

If no civilian has the ability to fight back, then they are helpless and must wait for a slow coming police car to come and protect them, in a situation when they would all be killed easily. A gun gives them a chance.


I live in a country that does not have a civilian armed population and I assure you that guns to NOT give them a chance, because we dont have guns to have a chance against. In a society with guns any conflict has a much higher chance of ending in shooting.

Who should have guns and why?
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I really don't have time to argue with both of you (maybe one of you can tear yourself away from your ideals and work another angle?).


You seem to be the one clinging to the idea that the government can somehow protect you from guns...

You have to be joking.


It may be highly unlikely, but it is possible.

OH I'm so stupid of course! They all had pistols that shot armor piercing rounds. Of course!


You seem to be obsessed with pistols. I personally am referring to ALL civilian weapons, shotguns, rifles, and yes pistols, with the occasional assault rifle put in there. Which, in case you don't know, works great in Iraq, at least the Ak-47s did.

So you don't trust your government and if they didn't go along with your ideals you would shoot people?


So you are saying if Hitler took over you country (as literally happened with Germany) you would not even attempt to stop it? You would just sit back and possible be conscripted into an unjust army?

Yeah but you can easily defend yourself from a knife than a gun. You can't run away from guns.


You can't run very well from a man who intends to kill you and has a knife...

Oh now any sniper is a professional smuggler? I don't think I even mentioned drugs. Your the one fixated on them.


A professional sniper would obviously be able to get a gun by any means, no? I am referring to the fact that your all protecting government has let literal tons of illegal drugs past it's boarders. How would it be any harder to get fire arms? In fact, the drug smugglers would probably start smuggling drugs as well, it would seem logical to assume.

and so you shoot and kill him?


If I need to. In the giving situation, it would seem better to just point the gun at him, make him drop his own gun, and hold him prisoner while your daughter calls the cops, doesn't it?

Wow, so the first thing you do when a burglar is robing your house it to take out your gun and shoot him?


You don't seem to be grasping the fact that just pointing an object that can kill you in the blink of an eye, they tend to not want to confront you.

So? I live in Canada and I almost never hear about gun violence. Most of it is from the news about America.


Sociology takes effect in here again. Last I checked, Canadian cities were anything but overpopulated.

I agree next time I see a robber I'll go;


You could just point a gun at him and avoid the whole thing...

Seriously, have you even touched a gun before? Because your knowledge of guns seems to come solely from television and video games. In real life, no one wants to die. In real life, a guy just basically has to touch you with a knife to damage were ever he wants.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Ok lets talk theory for a moment. In theory if the whole world was responsible enough we would have absolutely no need to walk around with guns or any weapons at all. Nice theory huh?
We were not talking about this tho. What I am talking about is... why does the USA have a higher homicide rate due to gun crime and the UK doesnt? I guess if we were to follow your reasoning then we should be allowed to drink or take drugs and drive in a "theoretical" situation that drinking or taking drugs had NO effect on crime WHATSOEVER, I'm sure you would agree that drink/drug driving should not be restricted? Because by your logic people should have the freedom to enforce...


How about the sociological reasons I mentioned earlier, such as overpopulated cities? That is typically the reason for most crime.

Exactly


Except the gun crimes that do happen would be much worse...

I live in a country that does not have a civilian armed population and I assure you that guns to NOT give them a chance, because we dont have guns to have a chance against. In a society with guns any conflict has a much higher chance of ending in shooting.


I would agree, in a society that has never heard of guns, it would be much less likely to run into shooting. However, guns have been invented and are here to stay, so every society has them, weather you like it or not, and then only the criminals are armed.

If both people have guns, then it is much LESS likely to end in shooting. A "No win" zone. It is much like the nuclear race. If only one country has nukes, it can use them as an effective tool. But if both countries have nukes, neither will fire as they will get owned by the other nukes.
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

Seriously, have you even touched a gun before?


I have never used a gun outside a controlled situation (like on a firing range) and I can personally vouch that not having guns within the civilian population worries me less.

In the UK its not likely that any robber will have a gun. Do you all understand this? Its less likely that crime will involve a gun... any crime. So if the robber doesnt have a gun I dont need a gun to defend myself against him.

I would also like to add that people are strange and if we went by the kind of theoretical arguments such as
it would seem better to just point the gun at him, make him drop his own gun, and hold him prisoner while your daughter calls the cops, doesn't it?

then we could say
"what if the robber is nuts, and shoots you on sight, then shoots your daughter and leaves with your belongings"
We could end up saying anything with "what if's" like these so this doesnt really help us understand the root of the problem, which I believe to be having guns available in the first place.
Showing 76-90 of 122