Guns

[K^2]

Shot spreads less than 20cm at in-house ranges, hardly compensating for poor acuracy. Stores in the US don't have "illegal full-auto rfifles" get you rfacts rightt or stick to "guns r bad".

Is it easier to hit a target with a rifle than a shotgun? NO, simple question, simple answer.

You don't want to just hit the target. You want to disable the target. If you just nick your target with a couple of shot pellets, it won't do you any good. And you wouldn't have time to get a second shot in. With a rifle, you tend to have less kickback, giving you better aim. In most scenarios, I would prefer a rifle over a shotgun.

 

And one more thing. What are you going to do with a shotgun if your attacker happened to wear a vest? Aim for the head? That gives you a much smaller target - spread or no spread. A good rifle will penetrate any armored vest at close range, and give the target kick to the internal organs to instantaneously disable the target in almost every situation. And even if it doesn't completely stop the target, it will slow the target down, giving you a good chance for a head shot at closer range.

[illspirit]

 

So your basis for holding a firearm is fear? I think someone is a little hypocritical. Everything you do, the surroundings you're in and the people you're with can all contribute to your death. Violence is just a small part. If you're going to great, risky lengths to rid a violent attack upon you (which is a rare occourrence itself, let alone a genocide and civil unrest), why not go further and cover everything overall?

Hmm, let's see here. At some point or another I've:

 

•Had some crazy guy kick in my front door and threaten to kill me and my friends.

•Been at a friend's house when somebody did a drive-by on it.

•Been out on the street one night when some gangstas randomly decided to test their (totally illegal) submachine gun in our direction.

•Been dragged from my house by a group of skinheads and beaten until I stopped breathing.

 

Among other things. So, yea, violence is rare, but not rare enough. In the last example, a gun would have come in rather handy. In the case of the drive-by, the fact they knew we had a small arsenal in the house was probably what prompted them to drive by without stopping, instead of, oh, I dunno, kicking in the door and shooting us one at a time.

 

As for civil unrest:

 

•Ever hear of Katrina?

•I've lived through a dozen or so hurricanes.

•A few of which involved some looting. Not Katrina bad, but, still.

•One of which left my neighborhood without electricity for nearly three weeks.

•I've watched at least one major riot happen locally on the news.

•And have witnessed small scale riots firsthand. So close I got to taste the oh-so-yummy police pepper spray.

 

Again, civil unrest is rare, but not rare enough. As for genocide, well, there have been like five times as many people murdered by their governments in the last century than have been murdered by criminals. Statistically speaking, it's not so rare. All of them probably thought "it can't happen here!" But as the old saying goes, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of the first steps to absolute power is disarming those who could oppose..

 

 

Don't drive, don't drink, don't smoke, don't have sex, don't eat meat, don't consume fatty and sweet foods, don't travel, don't play sport, don't use public transport, don't interact with people. Afterall, you could die from either one of those. So why don't they get a mention?

Your analogies are flawed. Owning a gun isn't like not doing all those things. Owning a gun is like wearing a seatbelt while driving, using modern tools and methods to cook/prepare food, or wearing a condom during sex. Are people who wear seatbelts trying to get in a car accident? Do people who eat intend to ingest tainted food? Is someone who uses condoms out trying to find partners with AIDS? Or is someone with a fire extinguisher in their house expecting a fire? No.

 

 

It's the people like you who create fear in this world. Just like how 'terrorism' is potrayed in the media, you exaggerate.

As opposed to people like you with a morbid, irrational fear of inanimate objects? Just like how so-called 'gun crime' drives the media into pants-sh*tting hysterics? I mean, really, if violence is as rare as you say it is, what's the point of banning all the guns?

[Ph3L1z14n0]

 

What are you going to do with a shotgun if your attacker happened to wear a vest?

Are you f*cking kidding me??? a kevlar vest??? dude we're talking about defense at your own home, no robber or attacker or even terrorist is going to come to your house with a kevlar vest, really man you're not that special

 

I could also say that the attacker has a f*cking tank!!! but it really would be bullsh*t.

 

Give me a break Marcus Fenix

[Leftcoast]

 

Are you f*cking kidding me??? a kevlar vest??? dude we're talking about defense at your own home, no robber or attacker or even terrorist is going to come to your house with a kevlar vest, really man you're not that special

 

It's not unheard of to carry a ballistics vest, I own one. The two men who robbed the bank in the North Hollywood shoot out I mentioned earlier were wearing home made ballistics armor at the time of the robbery. Even if you have a hard time buying a ballistics vest, it's easy to buy the high density/ballistics grade kevlar. Kevlar is a commonly used material in the composites industry.

[Teqila]

 

What are you going to do with a shotgun if your attacker happened to wear a vest?

Are you f*cking kidding me??? a kevlar vest??? dude we're talking about defense at your own home, no robber or attacker or even terrorist is going to come to your house with a kevlar vest, really man you're not that special

 

I could also say that the attacker has a f*cking tank!!! but it really would be bullsh*t.

 

Give me a break Marcus Fenix

You act like a $250 fiber vest is a weappon of mass destruction. Yes, criminals have worn bullet resistant vests. There is a federal law here that increases the punisment for having a vest during the crime.

[livelife4life]

Guns don't kill people, poverty kills people.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

You act like a $250 fiber vest is a weappon of mass destruction. Yes, criminals have worn bullet resistant vests. There is a federal law here that increases the punisment for having a vest during the crime.

I had never heard about criminals with kevlar vests in my life, new indeed to me.

 

Although i still gotta stand by the same argument, any of you would choose a rifle definitely because you know and can use one, but in reality any weapon can do just fine when it comes to defending yourself.

 

Not ban, but control.

[K^2]

Again, what do you do if your attacker has an automatic weapon? Or does this never happen either? Because you seriously need to get rid of whatever reality filtering goggles you are wearing.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

Again, what do you do if your attacker has an automatic weapon? Or does this never happen either? Because you seriously need to get rid of whatever reality filtering goggles you are wearing.

Look, let's not argue that way, the situations you are describing are not a reflection of self-defense, they are too far fetched in my opinion, in my country every criminal rating is up the heavens and you NEVER hear of robbers with automatic weapons or with kevlar vests, i am not discrediting your stories but if it happens in the US, with all reason it should happen where i am.

 

One of the users here said that the proliferation of guns and the propaganda on how you need them to protect yourself instigates fear, personally i have to agree, in the US people have the colored status for "possible terrorist attack", doesn't that create fear instead of reducing it? same thing with guns, tell everyone that if they don't have guns they will be slaughtered by criminals, it creates fear in the population, instead of looking out everything on "the wiki", maybe watch "Bowling For Columbine", it's a great documentary that has a lot to do with the topic.

[K^2]

It isn't about the fear of criminals at all. A police state easily solves all the criminal problems. We know that. You can cut crime rates in US nearly by a factor of ten in less than a year by simply passing stricter enforcement laws. But I wouldn't want to live in a state like that. In US we learn to live without relying on government help too much. We know that if there is a crisis situation, there will be criminals with automatic weapons and Kevlar vests running around. Look at what happened in New Orleans. Of course, a more organized government could have handled it better. US government cannot. We want it that way. We want a government that lets people solve their own problems. Not the kind that carefully polices every aspect of our lives to make sure that we don't hurt ourselves with big bad guns.

 

If you prefer to live in a state where you government makes all of your choices for you, to prevent you from making wrong ones, well, then I understand why you support gun control. But if that is the way you want things to be, don't come to the States, and don't enter debates about gun laws. Let us deal with it.

[Leftcoast]

 

Look, let's not argue that way, the situations you are describing are not a reflection of self-defense, they are too far fetched in my opinion, in my country every criminal rating is up the heavens and you NEVER hear of robbers with automatic weapons or with kevlar vests, i am not discrediting your stories but if it happens in the US, with all reason it should happen where i am.

 

I'm not trying to dismount you here, I just have a great story from my neck of the woods.

 

Despite what many thing, California has many locations where red necks/hicks/meth addics reside. Where I come from is a nice part of the state; however, there are a few communities near where I am from that have some less than nice people. By that, I meen crack heads and white trash. People of other ethnic backgrounds do not cause as much trouble as meth heads here.

 

For background, my parents are old hippies, real hippies, not those a-holes at street corners asking for change, those are bums not hippies. I was told how to be safe around guns of all things when I was raised. My parents didn't want to shelter me too much and wanted to make sure I was prepared for the world.

 

Getting to the point. I was out with a good friend of mine and some of his friends. We went up into the hills to shoot some skeet (spelling, sorry too lazy to care at the moment) and some other guns in a safe enviroment. To give you background, we 4 wheeled up a nice muddy snow covered road (yes, it snows in California, in fact, we have some awsome snow country for those who have not been here). After a while a baby blue 80's mazda without a front grill rolls up with smoke/vapor coming out of the radiator. The car then turns some donuts in the mud around where we are shooting. Never mind how this POS got 4 miles on an off road trail, they drive across our OBVIOUS line of fire (only an idiot or a drunk a-hole would have issues understanding our line of fire). This bottle goblin drives his crappy car onto the area we are shooting. In doing so, the driver creates a gash in his oil pan about the same size as the crack that sunk the Titanic. It takes less than a minute for the oil to drain out.

 

A drunk guy gets out with an open can of Natural Ice (you can't make this crap up) and a loaded 12 gauge remington shotgun. The shotgun had an engraved stalk and was obviosly stolen. The man is totaly drunk, he has some methed out crack head next to him and two infant children in the back. The man says "SH*T, I got a oil leak, yal got a bar of soap?" We say no. The man procedes to use the car, with children in it, as a rest for his shotgun. At this point we are trying to get the hell out of Dodge. The man begins to fire at a metal car door that was left from someone, with no warning at all (we had taken off our ear and eye protection because we were trying to leave).

 

As we try to leave the crack head realises that we are getting ready to leave and is not happy. The cracky knows that his car is done for. He starts angrily shooting at random things while yelling swear words and getting more (crappy) beer.

 

To shorten things up, we pack our crap up while the cracky is distracted and get ready to haul a-- down the road. My good friend hands me his shotgun with ammo in hand and calmly says to take the gun, load it, and get in the car with it. Now, I'm a law abiding person, taking a loaded gun into a car is a serious crime. In this case, it didn't matter, it was better to leave the area packing heat.

 

We got down down the road like a bat out of... Compton.......

 

I have not gone back to that area without body armor and every person I'm with being armed.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

 

If you prefer to live in a state where you government makes all of your choices for you, to prevent you from making wrong ones, well, then I understand why you support gun control. But if that is the way you want things to be, don't come to the States, and don't enter debates about gun laws. Let us deal with it.

No offense to anyone but the US government actually is a government who does not enforce and take care of the independence of their citizens and their rights, the difference between my politicians and your politicians is that my politicians are dumb, dictatorial assholes, they screw you over in your face, while american politicians do the same thing, but they are smarter, they use the cover up of law to f*ck you up, and if you don't look hard enough, you'll never notice.

 

There has to be some balance, there is a reason why we have governments because like i f*cking said already, maybe YOU can make choices independently about guns, but some other people can't or don't give a sh*t, a responsible government which makes the right choices is not necessarily an autocratic or a limping one.

 

I am also going to say this again because you are f*cking deaf, NOT BAN BUT CONTROL, why control??? because many guns require training to be able to use them, and many of them are specially made for war purposes, why in the hell would you need a gun for war purposes???

 

It is irresponsible just because of your libertinism, i can't wait to see the day that somebody gets an RPG to their face and the NRA once again says they are not responsible for that, oh they never do, poor little old rednecks.

 

As for the idea of everyone being armed, it doesn't really sound bad, if any of you were to arm the people of your country, what would you give them?

 

I think everyone should have at their homes a Glock 17 and a Remington shotgun, post your ideas!!!

Edited September 20, 2007 by Ph3L1z14n0

[illspirit]

 

I am also going to say this again because you are f*cking deaf, NOT BAN BUT CONTROL, why control??? because many guns require training to be able to use them,

But why?

 

To reduce crime? Assuming that criminals were to follow the law (which they tend not to, by definition..) and get training before buying a gun, wouldn't that make them more dangerous? As it is, most street punks could barely hit the side of a house from more than three meters. Hence why most criminal usage of firearms is nonfatal. Do you want them all to be able to make headshots?

 

Or do you mean to reduce accidents? If so, that's already rare. According to the CDC, there were only 649 unintentional firearm deaths and 16,555 unintentional nonfatal gunshot injuries in 2004. By contrast, for vehicles, which require licensing and training, there were 44,933 unintentional motor vehicle deaths and 4,521,735 transportation related injuries. Bear in mind that there are also more guns than cars in the US, by about 290 million to 260 million.

 

Furthermore, who gets to decide on the training requirements? Politicians? Even if the requirements are "reasonable" at first, you've just let the government stick its foot in the door for further restrictions. On a fundamental, inalienable right, no less. What happens when new, anti-gun leaders are elected, or unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of some department are appointed? They can then simply up the level of training in small steps until it becomes prohibitive for people to do so.

 

This isn't a simple slippery slope argument either. Just look at Australia or the UK to see how it ends up. The legal hoops one must jump through there to own a firearm are so numerous and expensive that most people don't even bother. Just this year, some anti-gun politician in Australia proposed increasing the training regimen to a six month long daily course, with a cost increase to match. Who has the time or money to basically attend university all over again just to own a firearm?

 

And, of course, if we let them legislate away one Constitutionally protected right (the one with teeth which protects the others..), what will stop them from doing so with the rest? If they get away with that, why shouldn't they be able to require licensing and training to run a newspaper/website or write a book? Maybe they could bring back the "literacy test" for voting too?

 

Either way, it's not the government's job to babysit everyone..

 

 

and many of them are specially made for war purposes, why in the hell would you need a gun for war purposes???

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you seek peace, prepare for war.

 

The fact that the population owns tens of millions of rifles for "war purposes" is the last and greatest in our system of checks and balances. It is this which politicians must ponder before they write new laws to restrict the people's freedom. It is this which serves as the final bulwark between liberty and tyranny.

 

That there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass" is also the reason Japan dared not invade the US mainland during WWII. And it is for this reason that any future aggressor must carefully consider doing the same.

[nlitement]

 

i can't wait to see the day that somebody gets an RPG to their face and the NRA once again says they are not responsible for that

That's why they're the National Rifle Association.

[Teqila]

i can't wait to see the day that somebody gets an RPG to their face and the NRA once again says they are not responsible for that

That's why they're the National Rifle Association.

What would the NRA have to do with someone being murdered with an RPG? What would they have to do with anyone being murdered at all? I'm not a member and don't want to join but that statement is ridiculous.

[Ph3L1z14n0]

i can't wait to see the day that somebody gets an RPG to their face and the NRA once again says they are not responsible for that

That's why they're the National Rifle Association.

What would the NRA have to do with someone being murdered with an RPG? What would they have to do with anyone being murdered at all? I'm not a member and don't want to join but that statement is ridiculous.

It could be any weapon, that's the point, what i am trying to say is that the day people get tired of the AK or any other war purpose weapon, they'll want something else!!!, in the future rifles won't satisfy this ridiculous "need".

[K^2]

I am also going to say this again because you are f*cking deaf, NOT BAN BUT CONTROL

And the difference is?

 

Yes, some guns require special training. Give it to people who want to own these guns. Curently, I can get a license to drive a vehicle easier than a license to own an automatic rifle, and even that only if the rifle is grandfathered. Which can I kill more people with? About the same. Automatic rifle in a crowd, or driving a truck into the crowd, the death toll will be the same. Which one am I more likely to kill a bunch of people by accident with? Car. By far.

 

So, what does that say about the curent level of control?

[DarthTemplar]

I Believe guns are okay. But just that you have to have a license and must keep this license for two months. Then keep the gun in a safe place away from children. (I heard that some kids were playing cops and robbers and one kid took his daddies gun and shot another kid.) Also keep proper gun control. Also keep background checks and don't give guns to alcoholics

[K^2]

I heard that some kids were playing cops and robbers and one kid took his daddies gun and shot another kid.

It's not just something that happened once. These things happen occasionally. You just need to keep in mind that while it should remind people to be more careful with their fire arms, it is not just the guns that cause these things to happen. Kids will always find something dangerous to play with if you don't watch them 24/7, and guns are typically rather low on the list of these dangerous things.

[Leftcoast]

 

Also keep background checks and don't give guns to alcoholics

 

No guns for alcoholics! I resent that.

 

 

Kids will always find something dangerous to play with if you don't watch them 24/7, and guns are typically rather low on the list of these dangerous things.

 

A large chunk of this topic could be easily changed to a topic about being responsible parents. In America at least, raising children has become the TVs job. However; the gun owners that I know, for the most part, are quite responsible.

 

[DarthTemplar]

No guns for alcoholics! I resent that.

 

Well most accidental deaths involving a firearm mostly involve alchohol. Booze and Guns go together like Cereal and Milk. But its a bad combo

[Leftcoast]

 

Well most accidental deaths involving a firearm mostly involve alchohol. Booze and Guns go together like Cereal and Milk. But its a bad combo

 

Just for the record, I don't drink while using guns.

[DarthTemplar]

Well most accidental deaths involving a firearm mostly involve alchohol. Booze and Guns go together like Cereal and Milk. But its a bad combo

 

Just for the record, I don't drink while using guns.

I meant in general. I didnt say that you did it. But most accidental gun deaths involve alchohol.

[K^2]

But most accidental gun deaths involve alchohol.

Most accidental almost anything deaths involve alcohol.

[All-Blacks]

 

<rarity of violence>

Hmm, let's see here. At some point or another I've:

 

•Had some crazy guy kick in my front door and threaten to kill me and my friends.

•Been at a friend's house when somebody did a drive-by on it.

•Been out on the street one night when some gangstas randomly decided to test their (totally illegal) submachine gun in our direction.

•Been dragged from my house by a group of skinheads and beaten until I stopped breathing.

 

Among other things. So, yea, violence is rare, but not rare enough. In the last example, a gun would have come in rather handy. In the case of the drive-by, the fact they knew we had a small arsenal in the house was probably what prompted them to drive by without stopping, instead of, oh, I dunno, kicking in the door and shooting us one at a time.

 

As for civil unrest:

 

•Ever hear of Katrina?

•I've lived through a dozen or so hurricanes.

•A few of which involved some looting. Not Katrina bad, but, still.

•One of which left my neighborhood without electricity for nearly three weeks.

•I've watched at least one major riot happen locally on the news.

•And have witnessed small scale riots firsthand. So close I got to taste the oh-so-yummy police pepper spray.

 

This is the problem. You're basing your opinion and evidence on US situations, likewise with me on the UK and NZL. For the large part, it's all down to where you live. Whereas you're more likely to be shot, I have a greater chance of being stabbed (notorious knife crimes in London).

 

I feel safe (enough) in the United Kingdom as I know that so many people can't get their gritty little hands on a firearm (of course they could, but not as straightforward as the US). I have little to no reason to fear of being in a situation as you described, as I have more of a chance of winning £1M in the national lottery than that. Same goes for my time in New Zealand. However, I am aware that any type of violence can occour against me, I am not being ignorant about it. Most importantly, I am cautious on not minding my own business (i.e. putting my tongue where it is not needed). I could be mugged, assaulted, stabbed etc. at any time for the result of it. But I know for certain I have little to no chance of getting into a situation where I need a firearm. I strongly oppose on basing my life entirely on fear.

 

Don't know about you, but I myself find this arguement void and pointless, primarily due to every country being diverse. Crime, people, cultures etc. are different all over the Globe. That's what is so brilliant about our world. Whereas certain crime may be out of control in one state (e.g. muggings in the UK, homicide in the US), it would be handled completely different in others. Weapon preference is also different, whilst knife crime is considerably higher than firearm in the UK, it's completely contrary to the US.

 

You may be happy with relaxed firearm control in the US, but I am happy with strict firearm control in the UK. You'd rather carry an unnecessary tool (i.e. Firearm) for situations where it may become a necessity (better safe than sorry in other words), whereas i'd prefer to live life without a worry, despite knowing there may come a time to protect myself. It's all down to personal preference.

 

 

[illspirit]

 

This is the problem. You're basing your opinion and evidence on US situations, likewise with me on the UK and NZL. For the large part, it's all down to where you live. Whereas you're more likely to be shot, I have a greater chance of being stabbed (notorious knife crimes in London).

 

I feel safe (enough) in the United Kingdom as I know that so many people can't get their gritty little hands on a firearm (of course they could, but not as straightforward as the US).

But, umm, between the signing of the Bill of Rights in 1689 which established the right of British subjects (at least the Protestant ones..) to "have arms for their defence," to the latter half of the 20th century, there was very little "gun crime" in the UK. Even forty or fifty years ago when it wasn't uncommon for Brits to carry a pistol for protection, so-called "gun crime" was still lower there than in our "uncivilized" former colonies. But then a funny thing happened along the way..

 

Knee-jerk reactions to a shooting in the mid '80s and Dunblane in '96 brought on bans of semiautomatic rifles and handguns, respectively. Since the '97 handgun ban, "gun crime" has tripled after remaining relatively stable for nearly two centuries. Between 1996 and 2002, homicides involving firearms increased by over 200%, only dipping back down to near the pre-ban levels in 2005. But after the rather bloody summer in London and Manchester this year, I would imagine that number will be going back up.

 

So, tell me, how exactly has the law stopped people from getting "their gritty little hands on a firearm?" How has it made you any safer? The numbers show the exact opposite.

 

 

I have little to no reason to fear of being in a situation as you described, as I have more of a chance of winning £1M in the national lottery than that.

Is that so? I'll grant you that the shooting incidents are less common (for now..), but unarmed home invasions and random beatings? Are you kidding me?

 

According to previously released Home Office stats, "the total number of violent offences in England and Wales was 2,420,000" in 2005. "3.4% of people experienced a violent incident." 3.4% = 3400 per 100,000 people.

 

During roughly the same time, the FBI "estimated 1,390,695 violent crimes occurred nationwide," or "an estimated 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants."

 

3400 > 469.2

 

And that was before Home Office admitted they'd been hiding an extra 2 million+ offenses per year. Which means you are about fifteen times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK. The hot burglary/home invasion rate alone is like thirteen times higher there. Why, it's almost like criminals are more afraid of kicking down doors that might have guns behind them..

 

 

Same goes for my time in New Zealand. However, I am aware that any type of violence can occour against me, I am not being ignorant about it.

Well, you ignored one major factor here: New Zealand's gun laws aren't that much stricter than those in the US. Yes, they have an annoying licensing system, but overall, NZ ranks just behind Switzerland, the United States, Israel, and Norway in the number of gun owners per capita, and about 8th in the number of privately owned guns per capita.

 

 

Most importantly, I am cautious on not minding my own business (i.e. putting my tongue where it is not needed). I could be mugged, assaulted, stabbed etc. at any time for the result of it. But I know for certain I have little to no chance of getting into a situation where I need a firearm. I strongly oppose on basing my life entirely on fear.

Of course. Situational awareness is 99.9% of survival. Knowing how to avoid a bad situation is more important than owning a gun. But what happens when the situation comes to you? Can you somehow avoid having your house randomly selected for robbery by some violent, junkie yob? I guess by the nature of your geographic location, you can probably avoid hurricanes and the occasional chaos in their aftermath, but I don't have a weather controlling machine to do the same here.

 

As for basing your life on fear, umm, if you're not afraid of anything, then why do you support a gun ban which only affects those who follow the law anyway? Why are you so afraid of guns?

 

And where are you getting this fear crap from anyway? I'm not afraid of criminals. I don't have to be. Myself and an unknown number of neighbors own guns. Criminals know this, and for the most part it is they who are afraid.

 

 

Don't know about you, but I myself find this arguement void and pointless, primarily due to every country being diverse. Crime, people, cultures etc. are different all over the Globe.  That's what is so brilliant about our world. Whereas certain crime may be out of control in one state (e.g. muggings in the UK, homicide in the US), it would be handled completely different in others. Weapon preference is also different, whilst knife crime is considerably higher than firearm in the UK, it's completely contrary to the US.

 

You may be happy with relaxed firearm control in the US, but I am happy with strict firearm control in the UK. You'd rather carry an unnecessary tool (i.e. Firearm) for situations where it may become a necessity (better safe than sorry in other words), whereas i'd prefer to live life without a worry, despite knowing there may come a time to protect myself. It's all down to personal preference.

While you are correct to say culture and such has far more to do with with crime than anything, you're completely missing your own point. As I said before, you've always had a lower level of gun related violence in the UK. Even more so before your dear "strict firearm control." If you took away all the guns in the US and sent them via boat to England, Americans would almost certainly continue to murder each other in higher numbers using knives/cars/fire/pointy sticks/etc.. As it is, we already have more knife related homicides than the UK, even with an abundance of guns.

 

Either way, there is one thing which is the same across all countries, continents, and cultures. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Banning guns in the UK has not stopped criminals from acquiring and using them in increasing numbers because they ignore the law. The only people the ban has affected are those inclined to follow laws to begin with.

[Don GTA81]

I support guns, which I own a heap lot of guns. I say they should be used. I've also heard from NZ, you have to be at least 16 to own a firearm. But I think you should be 18 to own one.

 

Mostly, people don't kill others for nothing. The drugs and problem persuade and manipulate that person into getting a firearm or killing people. So you can ask me for what I prefer better, but since I mentioned drugs here, I say drugs should be banned rather than guns.

 

The USA can be the most violent gun-violence bothered place of all. That includes school shootings, serial killings, drive bys, and any ways of hurting a human with a firearm.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Don GTA81

[RSHAXUR]

Im all for guns. The United States definately has a thing for guns. But the US also has ways to satisfy both sides of this argument.

 

For:

Metal Storm: 1,000,000 rounds/min (thats not a typo)

Barrett M107 Sniper Rifle: .50 cal/ 2700 F/S | 2000+ Meter range

Electromagnetic Gun: Can fire metal objects at mach 8 (6088MPH/9784KMH/2722.32M/S)

 

Against:

Ray Gun: Uses electomagnetic spectrum to cause enemy to submit to surrender.

 

Guns should be supported. But i do think wars should be fought on this extremely massive video game

 

[Typhus]

Guns are not great. They should be reserved for our armed forced and coppers. But will that happen? No. Criminals always get their hands on them in the end. And if it wasn't guns it would be swords. Ban swords? Sticks. Ban sticks? Big f*cking rocks.

We have it in our nature to kill. Our special little curse. And for all our brain power we can't seem to shake it. It is an absolute. As long as there are human beings on this planet there will be carnage. And perhaps it is best if we protect ourselves from that carnage. Call me a survivalist if you will, call me some paranoid nutter. But the end is coming. Soon all things will burn. A new racial and religious war is brewing around the world. There will be murder in the streets. Arming yourself for this inevitable sh*tstorm is actually rather wise. At the very least it will prevent another Reginald Denny situation.

[willgtavcs]