Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Gun Control/2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

Dingdongs

I personally am for strict gun control.. (in most cases )... first of all, Madison did not have M16's and LAWs in mind when writing the second amendment.. I am all for citizens being able to keep handguns, but that's it. Anything other than a handgun is not needed and you're overdoing it and simply just wanting to feel bigger and better than neighbors/friends. And to even be able to get a handgun, you should have to go through intense physic screening, extreme background checks, and if there is just one tiny crime on that persons record, no handgun.. those who have a military record should have an expedited case at getting their handgun.

 

If you really need to " protect your family " take up martial arts or something. You don't need to kill someone in the name of security.

 

That said,I don't think restricting handguns is going to work- for the following reasons:

1. Police officers and federal agents will be the only people with handguns, and if they are somehow misplaced, it could end up in the hands of some random person and cause an uproar of some sort.

 

2. Too many handguns exist currently, just WAY too many that it wouldn't be able to be realistically controlled and regulated---- Background checks and extreme regulation is fine for me

 

 

However, I stand by that any weapon other than the Handgun doesn't belong in our everyday society. You don't need an M16 to protect your family.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

"The only thing that makes the difference between a dangerous gun and a safe gun is not it's barrel length, it's capacity, it's caliber, it's model or it's mechanism, it is the person holding it."

 

An AR is a more effective firearm in many situations. Therefore if it suits a person's needs better than a handgun or shotgun... or whatever, who are we to say they cannot have it? Who are we to say who gets what? We are all equal and should all be afforded whatever means to defend ourselves/hunt/shoot old crap that we deem necessary(I am talking firearms here, not bombs etc). I don't consider discretionary licensing(for CC, at least) a viable alternative simply because it becomes another method to limit gun ownership as much as possible for political reasons(*cough*Canada*cough*).

 

Besides, the differences between any "black" rifle and a more traditional looking rifle is largely cosmetic. An AR 15 can not legally be full-auto, so as a semi-automatic it is functionally very similar to something a lot less scary, like a mini-14 or a SKS. The round fired from an Ak or M16 isn't even that powerful when compared to anything used in a hunting rifle or any rifle that was designed for single fire mode. Rifles are not over-doing it, I think this at least can be agreed upon. A rifle is rifle, and a pistol is a pistol. They both have their place. Unless I lived in an apartment, I would use a rifle for most purposes besides CC.

 

To quote someone(from gtaforums, dunno who, probably illspirit):

 

"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."

 

I don't think a Ferrari is necessary to drive, and it's dangerous in irresponsible hands. But I'm not going to restrict certain car models because they're faster/bigger/stronger/etc. The burden of responsibility falls on the individual not collectively on society. The only obligation a gun owner has to society is to be licensed and trained. If they f*ck that up, punish them and don;t crack down on all firearms owners collectively.

 

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
I personally am for strict gun control.. (in most cases )... first of all, Madison did not have M16's and LAWs in mind when writing the second amendment.. I am all for citizens being able to keep handguns, but that's it. Anything other than a handgun is not needed and you're overdoing it and simply just wanting to feel bigger and better than neighbors/friends. And to even be able to get a handgun, you should have to go through intense physic screening, extreme background checks, and if there is just one tiny crime on that persons record, no handgun.. those who have a military record should have an expedited case at getting their handgun.

 

If you really need to " protect your family " take up martial arts or something. You don't need to kill someone in the name of security.

 

That said,I don't think restricting handguns is going to work- for the following reasons:

1. Police officers and federal agents will be the only people with handguns, and if they are somehow misplaced, it could end up in the hands of some random person and cause an uproar of some sort.

 

2. Too many handguns exist currently, just WAY too many that it wouldn't be able to be realistically controlled and regulated---- Background checks and extreme regulation is fine for me

 

 

However, I stand by that any weapon other than the Handgun doesn't belong in our everyday society. You don't need an M16 to protect your family.

Thank you finally someone agrees with me! Though I have a somewhat different filling on it all. I think that every gun should be outlawed except one government approved firearm. ( a very weak one). To operate this weapon you must have a license ( also the process is much harder now), o through many test, pay a fee of 10000 dollars, buy a safe to keep the gun in, keep the safe away from children, you can't take the gun away from the safe except for an emergenry, and sign a contact. If you break the contact and law enforcement finds out you will spend 5 yrs in jail minumin. Also only law enforcement would be allowed to carry weapons and the government would set a up an anti gun task force.

 

O and 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."

Is not true. Japan first off was being bombarded so much they didn't have the resources to even launch a mainland attack anyway. They knew from Alaksa that would have ended in massive suicide on there part.

 

And look at countries where guns are restricted. Yea those Brits, and Japs sure are living in an oppressive dicatorship huh? sarcasm.gif Guns kill thousands every year and must be regulated and banned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

And look at countries where guns are restricted. Yea those Brits, and Japs sure are living in an oppressive dicatorship huh? sarcasm.gif Guns kill thousands every year and must be regulated and banned!

Hypocrisy - when you respect every amendment to the constitution accept the 2nd. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally anyway, so banning guns is only going to hurt the people who only want to use them for self defense. Besides, most firearm related deaths are a case of criminals shooting criminals, which in itself isn't entirely a bad thing.

 

I'm with shaboobala on this one.

 

@Irviding: How do you know what Madison had in mind? It's both ignorant and naive to assume what he thought, and this applies to both sides of this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makeshyft

I actually did a research assignment on gun control, as we had massive restrictions imposed on us (Australia) following the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. What I ended up discovering was that homicides involving firearms did decrease following gun reform, but it was consistent with the rate at which it was declining already. In short: gun reform had little-to-no impact on gun-related homicide in Australia.

 

When you remove the right of citizens to possess firearms, you really do just leave guns in the hands of the criminals. You leave the law abiding without adequate defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

If you really need to " protect your family " take up martial arts or something. You don't need to kill someone in the name of security.

 

That said,I don't think restricting handguns is going to work- for the following reasons:

1. Police officers and federal agents will be the only people with handguns, and if they are somehow misplaced, it could end up in the hands of some random person and cause an uproar of some sort.

 

 

It takes a lot less time and money to learn how to use a gun for self-defense than say... Muay Thai. And even then it is still a much safer, more efficient means of self defense. You always wanna minimize physical contact between you and a potential attacker. And although obviously most people with a legitimate firearm aren't looking to kill anyone, it may be necessary. You better believe that if someone is causing me to fear for my life, or even worse, that of my family, then I would not be afraid to kill that person. If you victimize me, then the consequences of those actions(getting shot) generally become your responsibility.

 

I find it strange that people are so willing to trust a police officer with guns(not just handguns either, they got the best stuff). The reason Police have guns is the same exact reason you are allowed to have one: self-defense. It is not privilege that gives a cop his gun, it's his rights. They are no less human that you. A police officer can be a bad person too and they can also misuse their gun. But again, that doesn't justify blanket punishment for an entire society.

 

Some simply see their role as one which necessitates the right to self defense more than the average citizens. But people's situations vary. Some of us live in bad areas. In my building break-ins are common. Someone nearby is murdered weekly. Sure the robber will generally just beat the occupant to a pulp, but am I supposed to thank him for not killing me? Then call the police and they'll make it all better? It is not up to anyone to judge whether a firearm is "necessary" for me or any citizen. If you don't want one, don't get one, but don't tell me I can't have one to defend myself. You'll still be surrounded with guns and crime regardless.

 

And really, Britain has gone over-the-top with it's nanny-state stuff. As have many western nations lately. There are lots of stupid, dangerous little precedents(gun bans being a big one) that are being set. It is our job to challenge these laws and ideas. Our freedoms come with a price, which is eternal vigilance. As soon as you become complacent and adopt the: "It can't happen here" attitude you start giving power to the power-grabbers.

Stability is an illusion. But relative to the past, we live in a golden age of equality(some parts of the world), if we wish to maintain that and not return to the socio-political quagmire from which humans have come then you must appreciate and understand why defending your rights is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
I personally am for strict gun control.. (in most cases )... first of all, Madison did not have M16's and LAWs in mind when writing the second amendment.. I am all for citizens being able to keep handguns, but that's it. Anything other than a handgun is not needed and you're overdoing it and simply just wanting to feel bigger and better than neighbors/friends. And to even be able to get a handgun, you should have to go through intense physic screening, extreme background checks, and if there is just one tiny crime on that persons record, no handgun.. those who have a military record should have an expedited case at getting their handgun.

 

If you really need to " protect your family " take up martial arts or something. You don't need to kill someone in the name of security.

 

That said,I don't think restricting handguns is going to work- for the following reasons:

1. Police officers and federal agents will be the only people with handguns, and if they are somehow misplaced, it could end up in the hands of some random person and cause an uproar of some sort.

 

2. Too many handguns exist currently, just WAY too many that it wouldn't be able to be realistically controlled and regulated---- Background checks and extreme regulation is fine for me

 

 

However, I stand by that any weapon other than the Handgun doesn't belong in our everyday society. You don't need an M16 to protect your family.

Thank you finally someone agrees with me! Though I have a somewhat different filling on it all. I think that every gun should be outlawed except one government approved firearm. ( a very weak one). To operate this weapon you must have a license ( also the process is much harder now), o through many test, pay a fee of 10000 dollars, buy a safe to keep the gun in, keep the safe away from children, you can't take the gun away from the safe except for an emergenry, and sign a contact. If you break the contact and law enforcement finds out you will spend 5 yrs in jail minumin. Also only law enforcement would be allowed to carry weapons and the government would set a up an anti gun task force.

 

O and 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."

Is not true. Japan first off was being bombarded so much they didn't have the resources to even launch a mainland attack anyway. They knew from Alaksa that would have ended in massive suicide on there part.

 

And look at countries where guns are restricted. Yea those Brits, and Japs sure are living in an oppressive dicatorship huh? sarcasm.gif Guns kill thousands every year and must be regulated and banned!

So if the government decided they wanted to kill some minority for some reason, what is stopping them? I really don't want to get too deconstructive with the whole argument because I don't have time, but your plan is naive. Why would I want to put up with all that bullsh*t, why not just illegally possess better weapons? Because I'll go to jail, you'll be jailing people for (presumably) a long time for what is essentially a victimless crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

What if even 5 passengers on the 9/11 planes had carried a gun?

 

Think about it.

 

 

Also, people should learn that "banning" something does not mean "making something disappear." It just means that whatever the resources available to law enforcement allow, they can take someone who shot somebody into holding and then prosecute them.

Edited by nlitement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Think about it. Examples of accidents, of minors and mentally unstable people easily stealing guns, there are too many.

 

Of course, I'm happy in Britain with our strict laws. Gun crime is relatively uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
Of course, I'm happy in Britain with our strict laws. Gun crime is relatively uncommon.

No, but from what I've read, stabbings are.

 

Advocates of banning guns seem to think that by banning guns, you're removing the desire some people have to kill other people. No. All you're doing is removing one of the things they can use to kill another person. There are other weapons. When criminals have no guns to use, they turn to knives instead. Shall we start banning all sharp objects nows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Maybe, but knives are a bit more multi-function and admittedly somewhat less dangerous then guns.

 

Of course, it varies between countries. America has a gun culture, and the constitution permits it (though an unrelated note, people on all end of the US spectrum seem to be able to change and ignore the constitution whenever it suits them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Man...

 

2nd Amendment Topic. Someone prepare to see this entire post corrected by illspirit at some point... tounge.gif

 

 

To me the most important aspect of the 2nd Amendment is not because it enables the citizens to protect themselves from each other, but because it constitutes one of the many "checks and balances" that our citizenry and government need to have between each other. Admittedly in this day in age it's a weak one, I think that in the times of its draft, and through the times of its late ratifications, the thing in mind was the government trying to come in and take arms, and leaving everyone unable to defend themselves.

 

That's a rough concept but a common one, but I have to question how relevant it is in modern times. Do we need to worry about government in this respect, and do we really think that small arms like these will even help us?

 

I really have always just been sort of at a dilemma about this issue. I don't think that a couple hundred of million of people with assault rifles and plenty of ammunition is really anything to scoff at.

 

Personally I don't think gun control really works anyway, but what scares me isn't really enabling people to own guns, but the message of civil rebellion some people start to infer from the 2nd amendment. I mean, the OKC bombings and Timothy McVeigh weren't a gun crime, but they were heavily related to self-proclaimed "resistance" groups that used the 2nd amendment as an excuse for violence in my opinion.

 

 

Really though I would be a hypocrite to say that I didn't want us to own weapons. I just don't know that I'm down with the whole, "militia" thing. There ought to be a cap on how many firearms you can have; there probably is anyway, but I'm not really that aware of such things. All I do know is that gun control is not that effective anyway, and there are a lot of bad people out there with them; I think people should be legally allowed to have an equalizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major underscore

 

America has a gun culture, and the constitution permits it

Actually, it does more than just permit gun ownership: it restricts the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Other countries, such as my country, do allow the ownership of guns, but also allows the government to (often severely) restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
Advocates of banning guns seem to think that by banning guns, you're removing the desire some people have to kill other people. No. All you're doing is removing one of the things they can use to kill another person. There are other weapons. When criminals have no guns to use, they turn to knives instead. Shall we start banning all sharp objects nows?

Not really. It's not going to cut the desire to kill others.. gun violence and stabbing violence are two very different things.

 

Sorry, but you don't need a god damn assault rifle to protect your family.. I've said many times that i'm fine with a handgun, but you're taking it too far by allowing random people to purchase assault rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

Putting the 2A argument (which we won in Heller) aside for a moment, what would the purpose for "allowing" handguns but restricting everything else be? To control crime? If so, isn't that like completely backwards seeing as the vast majority of criminals prefer handguns since they are easier to conceal? In 2007, for instance, there were 7,361 homicides involving handguns versus 450 for rifles and 455 for shotguns. This, despite the fact that there were more rifles and shotguns than handguns manufactured in the same year. I don't have recent total numbers handy, but in 1994, "Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns."

 

Today we're probably closer to 200 million long guns and 100 million handguns. 905 homicides out of ~200 million is statistical noise compared to handgun to homicide ratio.

 

As for what anyone "needs" to protect their family, a shotgun is often a better choice. Especially in an apartment or tightly packed suburb where even a 9mm hollow point can clog with wall material, fail to expand, then over-penetrate several walls.

 

With regards to "needing" an AR-15, not only is it less powerful than typical hunting rifles, as shaboobala said, .223 REM is pretty much the least powerful centerfire rifle round. And they come in handy defending your family from, say, looters during a societal breakdown such as post-Katrina New Orleans or the Rodney King riots.

 

 

And look at countries where guns are restricted. Yea those Brits, and Japs sure are living in an oppressive dicatorship huh?

Japan has been a rather repressive society for centuries. The Brits? Well, they're getting there. tounge.gif

 

 

Of course, I'm happy in Britain with our strict laws. Gun crime is relatively uncommon.

Except "gun crime" has risen rather dramatically since the strict laws were enacted. Though I suppose you could at least be happy that chavs are apparently really poor shots.

 

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

I was aware of those statistics, but to my knowledge, we have very few "gun massacres". And the recent rise in gun crime can be tied to the rise of street gangs and such. Imagine how easier it would be to get guns if they were legal.

 

And most statistics say that while gun homicides do rise after a ban, in the longterm they go down. Which is what I see there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

Advocates of banning guns seem to think that by banning guns, you're removing the desire some people have to kill other people. No. All you're doing is removing one of the things they can use to kill another person. There are other weapons. When criminals have no guns to use, they turn to knives instead. Shall we start banning all sharp objects nows?

Not really. It's not going to cut the desire to kill others.. gun violence and stabbing violence are two very different things.

 

 

How so? They're both weapons that can be used to kill. They're both tools which criminals will use to commit crimes. There is no difference.

 

@General Goose: I guess you're ignoring the fact that most firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally? Or in Britain's case, pretty much all the time? As others have already said, banning guns only takes them away from the people who want to use them for self defense. It doesn't stop the criminals from getting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

True, fair points.

 

But still, I would not legalise guns. It also prevents those, random people who suddenly turn crazy and go on a rampage, and some criminals do find it harder to get guns.

 

At the end of the day, America has a deeply rooted culture of guns, and if somebody decides to go about removing that, it will, if not impossible, take time. Britain did not have a deeply rooted gun culture, thus outright banning them was much easier and I guess more effective in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

The incidents where somebody suddenly turns crazy and starts shooting a load of people are very rare, that's why you hear about it on the news. Besides, if somebody suddenly turns crazy they'll just go on a rampage with something else. The mere fact that they're crazy means they don't think rationally, so they would utilize anything around them to kill somebody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Well, they do happen, and they can get hold of guns much easier in America. Which is also why they get in the news. A man without a gun is pretty weak, a man with a gun is pretty tough to defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

What makes a mad-man with a knife weak? If crazy people with knives are so weak then why are there so many stabbings in the UK? My point still stands, if there aren't any guns, they will just move onto something else. Simply banning guns does not solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

I meant weak compared to what he could do if he had a gun. Obviously knife crime is a serious problem, but let's face it: guns are the most dangerous weapon in a criminal's arsenal. Ranged, fast and lethal. Say somebody went on a rampage with a knife. It would be horrible, but chances are he could do more damage with a gun.

 

It doesn't solve the problem and has its cons, but banning guns does remove one of the easiest ways to cause great loss of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

It all depends on the situation and who's wielding said weapon. Guns are harder to fire than they look, and there are plenty of people out there who are well trained to take someone down with a knife. In some cases, a knife would be more effective (not to mention more painful for the victim) because it is both silent and yes, lethal.

 

Banning guns doesn't remove one of the easiest ways to cause loss of life, it just removes the guns from the people who need them for self defense. By allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms, they are on a level playing field to criminals who are able to obtain guns, banned or not. By not allowing law abiding citizens to own guns, you're giving the criminals the upper hand. Don't take my word for it though. I remember watching a TV show about gun control and they even interviewed an ex-gang member who said that by banning guns, you are giving him the advantage because he can break into somebody's house and do whatever he likes without the fear of having the owner of that house turn a gun on him. Think about it. If you were a burglar and you were going to break into a house - which house would you pick?

 

The house occupied by a man with 7 guns or the house occupied by the family with absolutely no firearms whatsoever?

Edited by Mad Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Well, fair enough.

 

However, LEGALISING gun ownership in Britain would just send out the wrong message. Somebody will probably die from a gun-related incident very quickly.

 

And yes, it does depend on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement
Maybe, but knives are a bit more multi-function and admittedly somewhat less dangerous then guns.

 

Of course, it varies between countries. America has a gun culture, and the constitution permits it (though an unrelated note, people on all end of the US spectrum seem to be able to change and ignore the constitution whenever it suits them.)

Less dangerous?

 

A single stab wound is more fatal than you think. You can even survive a bullet to the head, if you get stabbed in the head, yeah, you're pretty much dead.

 

 

It's like playing football and penalizing the other team for touching touching the ball. sigh.gif Guess who's gonna be winning all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

A knife is MUCH LESS dangerous at range. Which is what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

 

 

It all depends on the situation and who's wielding said weapon. Guns are harder to fire than they look, and there are plenty of people out there who are well trained to take someone down with a knife. In some cases, a knife would be more effective (not to mention more painful for the victim) because it is both silent and yes, lethal.

 

 

 

Actually, guns are very easy to fire- especially handguns. I own a Glock 17 myself and when I was younger my uncle ( Colonel in the Marines, and he too believes that all weapons other than handguns should be illegal for citizens) taught me how to shoot a pistol on my own, until I was about 10 years old he would help me fire, after that point- I was able to fire on my own at targets outside. Trust me, a random person picking up a pistol can fire at someone point blank quite easily- that arguement doesn't work for me.

 

 

 

Banning guns doesn't remove one of the easiest ways to cause loss of life, it just removes the guns from the people who need them for self defense. By allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms, they are on a level playing field to criminals who are able to obtain guns, banned or not. By not allowing law abiding citizens to own guns, you're giving the criminals the upper hand. Don't take my word for it though. I remember watching a TV show about gun control and they even interviewed an ex-gang member who said that by banning guns, you are giving him the advantage because he can break into somebody's house and do whatever he likes without the fear of having the owner of that house turn a gun on him. Think about it. If you were a burglar and you were going to break into a house - which house would you pick?

 

The house occupied by a man with 7 guns or the house occupied by the family with absolutely no firearms whatsoever?

 

 

 

As for the house thing, I've said over and over at least that I am for keeping handguns legal, so look into getting a handgun, or take up martial arts- you don't need a god damn AK-47 to keep your home safe.

 

 

 

It doesn't REMOVE It, but it significantly changes it. Who needs an assault rifle for self defense? Please tell me who needs an M16 or a Carbine rifle to protect themselves.

As I said, I have no problem allowing law abiding citizens to own HANDGUNS- assault rifles or shotguns or anything other than a handgun are unsafe and not necessary. You can't justify needing a shotgun or rifle for protecting your family.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
Actually, guns are very easy to fire- especially handguns. I own a Glock 17 myself and when I was younger my uncle ( Colonel in the Marines, and he too believes that all weapons other than handguns should be illegal for citizens) taught me how to shoot a pistol on my own, until I was about 10 years old he would help me fire, after that point- I was able to fire on my own at targets outside. Trust me, a random person picking up a pistol can fire at someone point blank quite easily- that arguement doesn't work for me.

 

Oh so your specific type of firearm is acceptable to use, but nothing else, I understand. Handguns are responsible for most gun crime, that's why they always try to ban them before they ban rifles.

 

The statistics, as previously mentioned, don't support your argument. I'm really sick of the tired debate though, all this has been said before and it will be said again. It is true that gun culture was never big in Britain, the ban was largely symbolic and political, hardly anybody actually owned handguns.

 

 

As I said, I have no problem allowing law abiding citizens to own HANDGUNS- assault rifles or shotguns or anything other than a handgun are unsafe and not necessary. You can't justify needing a shotgun or rifle for protecting your family.

 

I really don't get this at all, I've never even seen this opinion before, not once. I admire its uniqueness, if nothing else. Shotguns are one of the primary methods of home defense, its hard to miss in a home, even at night. Rifles are used for hunting and assault rifles are usually for collecting or shooting purposes, there aren't many criminals out there using assault rifles legal or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
Actually, guns are very easy to fire- especially handguns. I own a Glock 17 myself and when I was younger my uncle ( Colonel in the Marines, and he too believes that all weapons other than handguns should be illegal for citizens) taught me how to shoot a pistol on my own, until I was about 10 years old he would help me fire, after that point- I was able to fire on my own at targets outside. Trust me, a random person picking up a pistol can fire at someone point blank quite easily- that arguement doesn't work for me.

 

Oh so your specific type of firearm is acceptable to use, but nothing else, I understand. Handguns are responsible for most gun crime, that's why they always try to ban them before they ban rifles.

 

The statistics, as previously mentioned, don't support your argument. I'm really sick of the tired debate though, all this has been said before and it will be said again. It is true that gun culture was never big in Britain, the ban was largely symbolic and political, hardly anybody actually owned handguns.

 

 

As I said, I have no problem allowing law abiding citizens to own HANDGUNS- assault rifles or shotguns or anything other than a handgun are unsafe and not necessary. You can't justify needing a shotgun or rifle for protecting your family.

 

I really don't get this at all, I've never even seen this opinion before, not once. I admire its uniqueness, if nothing else. Shotguns are one of the primary methods of home defense, its hard to miss in a home, even at night. Rifles are used for hunting and assault rifles are usually for collecting or shooting purposes, there aren't many criminals out there using assault rifles legal or not.

It's a pretty common for those who are slightly left on gun control...

 

Assault rifles are dangerous things, as are shotguns, and other types of rifles. As I have said many times, you don't need an assault rifle to defend your home, nor do you need a shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

I was aware of those statistics, but to my knowledge, we have very few "gun massacres". And the recent rise in gun crime can be tied to the rise of street gangs and such. Imagine how easier it would be to get guns if they were legal.

 

And most statistics say that while gun homicides do rise after a ban, in the longterm they go down. Which is what I see there.

Mass shootings are an anomaly either way, but you may have a point that there are none there because there's a smaller chance of someone with a gun snapping one day. It might also be that there are simply less would-be killers there to begin with. While a large portion of the difference my previous graph is likely attributable to lack of familiarity with firearms to your criminals and recent advances in gunshot treatment, the slight negative correlation would indicate they might not be as willing to intentionally murder their targets. This theory also plays out in fact that there are roughly twice as many non-firearm homicides per capita in the US than there are in England and Wales.

 

Whether it's knives, bats, or bare hands, American criminals are more likely to murder their victims. This, despite, say, our assault rates being within about a tenth of a percent of each other or your burglary rate is nearly twice as high.

 

 

A knife is MUCH LESS dangerous at range. Which is what I meant.

Yes, but against unarmed targets, range is less of a factor.

 

 

As I said, I have no problem allowing law abiding citizens to own HANDGUNS- assault rifles or shotguns or anything other than a handgun are unsafe and not necessary. You can't justify needing a shotgun or rifle for protecting your family.

As I said on page 1, shotguns are sometimes better for defending your home because they're less likely to penetrate multiple walls and hit neighbors than a 9mm. Especially with lighter buckshot.

 

And a rifle is more than justified if you're facing multiple assailants; be it during a riot or in a place where police are an hour away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.