Quake3World

Nightshade wrote: The argument is NOT bullshit, as people defend their homes from criminals on a regular basis, the media just doesn't seem to publicize it. It's also not a constant occurrence, but it happens somewhere in the US pretty much every day. And if a kid uses a parent's firearm in the manner you describe(which I'll admit does happen), whose fault is it? The gun's? Hell fuck no. It's the retard parent's fault.
Just because a drunk misuses a car and kills someone while driving doesn't mean you ban cars.

I really wonder how effective a deterrent a gun is when you're a responsible gun owner and make sure you lock away and unload your weapons when you're not using them. Surely the armed burgler is going to be faster. Unless maybe you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow, which would probably be damn dangerous, especially if you have kids in the house.

Also, the car analogy is flawed, since cars are meant as a transportation device rather than a killing apparatus. Even knives are a bad analogy, they can be used for cooking. Hey, i'm all for personal responsability, but people are fucking stupid and things should be done to protect them against themselves.

The point is that an OBJECT can be misused, it doesn't make the end result the fault of said object.
There are ways by which you can properly secure a weapon and still have rapid access to it. To me, I'd rather have big dogs as my first line of defense, and a weapon just in case.
Also, you need to practice with your chosen weapon. Failure to do so results in you getting killed, having your weapon taken from you, or just being more prone to shoot the wrong person.

Nightshade wrote: Also, you need to practice with your chosen weapon. Failure to do so results in you getting killed, having your weapon taken from you, or just being more prone to shoot the wrong person.

too bad the responsibility the enforce said practice is being shunned by everyone, innit?

Nightshade wrote:The point is that an OBJECT can be misused, it doesn't make the end result the fault of said object.
There are ways by which you can properly secure a weapon and still have rapid access to it. To me, I'd rather have big dogs as my first line of defense, and a weapon just in case.
Also, you need to practice with your chosen weapon. Failure to do so results in you getting killed, having your weapon taken from you, or just being more prone to shoot the wrong person.

I never said it's the fault of the gun, a gun is an object and can not be blamed for anything. What i'm trying to say is that it's the fault of stupid people, and since stupid people will always form the vast majority of a population, they should be protected against tthemselves, IE from operating divices whose only purpose is to kill. It's no use claiming personal responsability is the issue when it was irrisponsible to give out personal responsibility in the first place.

That's the main argument i have why i think guns should be banned... the whole safety issue, general lack of training with weapons and how easy it is to kill with one (much easier than a knife i imagine) are all subject to that.

btw these discussions are always fun - it's just a cultural thing you americans have and us euros don't.

The problem lies in stupid politicians taking knee-jerk actions resulting in superficial, ineffective laws. Mandating effective training courses for gun owners would make sense. Florida enacted a law making it the gun owner's responsibility if a someone else gets their gun and shoots someone. I believe that if you've taken reasonable precautions, e.g. a gun vault, you won't be nailed if someone breaks into it. However, if your weapon is not properly secured and Little Billy blasts Mary with it, you're fucked. This is the sole example of common sense gun legislation I've seen recently.
As I said earlier, I agree with background checks and a waiting period, just not stupid shit like taxing the hell out of ammo and limiting magazine capacity.
Perfect example of inefective legislation: The 90's ban on "assault weapons". It didn't ban OWNERSHIP of said weapons, just new production. So, the politicians got to pat themselves on the back, and stupid voters got to feel as though their congresscritter had done something. Meanwhile, thugs were still stealing AKs from legal gun owners, and the price and demand for them went through the roof.

I've never understood the point of assault weapons. When 17 burglars attack you at once?

I don't believe that anyone NEEDS an "assault rifle" either. But, if you read the intent of the second amendment to the Constitution, US citizens actually have MORE right to possess an M16 or AK47 than they do a deer rifle. It's arguable, but a "well-regulated militia" to me means one equipped with armaments comparable to that of the standing army.
My point again is that if I'm a responsible, law-abiding citizen, I should be able to own whatever firearm I choose. I suppose this begs the questions: Where do we draw the line? Can I have a grenade launcher? Can I have a tank?
When it comes to potential defense against government tyranny, I'd say err in favor of the citizen.

*goes out to get a LAW*
just doing my part as a member of the militia !

america's in a funny position. making it illegal to own guns in some states is just going to make lawbreakers out of people that would otherwise be innocent and create a new/bigger black market for weapons in that state. it'd make more sense to bring in the sort of legislation ns is talking about (responsible gun ownership) as a step towards getting rid of them entirely.

dunno about the notion of a right to bear arms or form well-regulated militias - could anyone really stand a chance in a domestic scrap against the american goverment's forces? i agree with the principle, i wish we had something similar over here, but sort of wonder if it's really still relevant these days. if georgy wants to bring in a law that says you have to give all your earnings straight to haliburton or makes female circumcision mandatory, what can you really do about it, gun or no gun?

I've always believed in the right to arm bears.

4days wrote:america's in a funny position. making it illegal to own guns in some states is just going to make lawbreakers out of people that would otherwise be innocent and create a new/bigger black market for weapons in that state. it'd make more sense to bring in the sort of legislation ns is talking about (responsible gun ownership) as a step towards getting rid of them entirely.

dunno about the notion of a right to bear arms or form well-regulated militias - could anyone really stand a chance in a domestic scrap against the american goverment's forces? i agree with the principle, i wish we had something similar over here, but sort of wonder if it's really still relevant these days. if georgy wants to bring in a law that says you have to give all your earnings straight to haliburton or makes female circumcision mandatory, what can you really do about it, gun or no gun?

Well since our Army is all volunteer, I dont think it would tolerate being told to fight a sustained action against people who are likely there neighbors.

Nightshade wrote:The point is that an OBJECT can be misused, it doesn't make the end result the fault of said object.

When you shoot someone you're not misuse gun, because it's made for killing people :P

I agree that banning guns in USA is ridiculous, but I'm glad I live in country where not all my neighbours got pistols. And I feel safe. Just imagine what would happen if all French got guns.

4days wrote:if georgy wants to bring in a law that says you have to give all your earnings straight to haliburton or makes female circumcision mandatory, what can you really do about it, gun or no gun?

The potential for armed insurrection to prevent government oppression like this is precisely the reason that the populace should have the right to possess firearms. If such a rebellion were to come about, the country would tear itself apart, but the goevernment would NOT prevail.

Lukin wrote:

Nightshade wrote:The point is that an OBJECT can be misused, it doesn't make the end result the fault of said object.

When you shoot someone you're not misuse gun, because it's made for killing people :P

I agree that banning guns in USA is ridiculous, but I'm glad I live in country where not all my neighbours got pistols. And I feel safe. Just imagine what would happen if all French got guns.

That's a rather flippant response. Committing cold-blooded murder with a firearm is most certainly a misuse. We may be arguing semantics, but I believe that while guns are designed to kill, it should be in a defensive circumstance. At least as far as civilians are concerned.

And if all the French had guns, the noise of all of them being dropped simultaneously would be deafening.

Let me use the cold war as an example - USA needed atom bombs, becuase Soviet Union had them and vice versa. It was justified, but the world without nuclear weapons would be much safer. Guns are like atom bombs. And just like you can't compare nuclear bomb with nuclear reactor you can't compare gun with a car or a knife.

Lukin wrote:Let me use the cold war as an example - USA needed atom bombs, becuase Soviet Union had them and vice versa. It was justified, but the world without nuclear weapons would be much safer. Guns are like atom bombs. And just like you can't compare nuclear bomb with nuclear reactor you can't compare gun with a car or a knife.

Guns aren't the problem here simply because people will find all sorts of innovative justifications and methods to kill each other just like we always have. Guns are a weapon, yes, but its not like violence just sprang into being after the invention of the gun.

Lukin wrote:Let me use the cold war as an example - USA needed atom bombs, becuase Soviet Union had them and vice versa. It was justified, but the world without nuclear weapons would be much safer. Guns are like atom bombs. And just like you can't compare nuclear bomb with nuclear reactor you can't compare gun with a car or a knife.

You're REALLY reaching here. You cannot deny the fact that there are LOTS of vicious, violent criminals in the world that justify someone owning a gun for self-defense. Sure the world would be a better place without guns, but that's not going to happen for a LONG time, if at all.
And you most certainly can compare guns with other objects if you're looking at intent.

Nightshade wrote:

Lukin wrote:Let me use the cold war as an example - USA needed atom bombs, becuase Soviet Union had them and vice versa. It was justified, but the world without nuclear weapons would be much safer. Guns are like atom bombs. And just like you can't compare nuclear bomb with nuclear reactor you can't compare gun with a car or a knife.

You're REALLY reaching here. You cannot deny the fact that there are LOTS of vicious, violent criminals in the world that justify someone owning a gun for self-defense. Sure the world would be a better place without guns, but that's not going to happen for a LONG time, if at all.
And you most certainly can compare guns with other objects if you're looking at intent.

they're vicious and violent in large part because they have guns. either way, how often have you run into these people? IIRC you (or most people) don't live in the south side of Chicago.

Let's get one thing straight: Guns DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT. The circumstances in which they live, their upbringing, many other factors, that's what makes people violent.
Does a pencil make you artistic?

I've been held up by a guy with an Uzi, I've had someone try to break into my apartment twice, I spent a year living next to fucking Compton East in Memphrica, etc. etc.

i dont think anyones arguing that. the problem essentially is that guns make violent people a lot more dangerous.

Uh, that's what you just said. Explicitly.

hm...you're right. my wording was off--my mistake. either way, i think my second point stands as far as i understand the situation.

Chupacabra wrote:i dont think anyones arguing that. the problem essentially is that guns make violent people a lot more dangerous.

All throughout human history there has been no shortage of violent and very dangerous people that didn't have guns.

agreed. thankfully, however, someone created a police force (not to mention better and well-defined laws and social behaviour), which is nowadays more or less fair in the places we live.

edit: i sure try to address the point more clearly. even though i think police, social customs blah blah blah make our world safer, i still think id rather, if for some bizarre reason i ever have to, face a bad guy who has a knife rather than a bad guy who has a gun. the gun makes him more dangerous.

Guns may make it easier for some people to kill, thereby enabling some people to kill who would not otherwise.

But there's no taking that back, now is there? They exist.

The fact is, if our entire country's civilians turned their guns into the law tomorrow, then every single criminal out there would know that no one is going to stand up to them if they try to break in somewhere carrying a gun.

And that would make the bad side of guns' existence even worse than it already is.

And that's beside the fact to begin with. Owning a gun is our constitutional right, whether it's a popular concept or not. We can debate whether that applies to fully auto machine guns and tanks, but I hardly think there's a question that it applies to handguns in most people's minds.