Firearms - The BiG question

Discussion in 'Debates' started by necr0, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. necr0

    necr0 Well-Known Member

    Many of you would be aware of the shooting that occured recently in America that killed over 20 people. Reporters and others are saying this tragedy occured because of the easy access people in America have to firearms and their ammunition.

    So, what are your thoughts on firearms?
    Do you think they should be legalized or have a total ban on them? Or maybe only deer hunters should be able to have them? Let's hear your thoughts RomU.



    My opinion

    Well, in Australia, we have very tight laws against firearms. I'm not saying they are hard to get because that's straight lying. But it's not easy either.

    But unfortunately, people still have guns. Recently, we had a drive by shooting on an old couple in Sydney. No reason. Just totally random.

    So did this occur because guns are easy to access? In my opinion, yes.
    I feel that Australia should do more to prevent people getting guns. It's risky for people to have them. Because people are getting hurt. Or even worse, killed.
     
  2. Neon32

    Neon32 Neo-Noir

    i saw some news in NDTV repoting that " The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world "

    and last month or so there was a shooting in an indian temple in US , and there was a random shootout in street near empire street building and many more .

    even the president said something about ending this gun revolution .


    i dont think that civilians need gun in their hands unless they know exactly where and how to use it .
     
  3. Hypr

    Hypr Well-Known Member

    I personally don't think all firearms should be totally banned. However, I'm all for banning assault weapons. As I've said on this forum before, I can't think of any good reason why civilians need access to assault weapons, especially during peacetime.

    I can understand people owning handguns for personal self-defense. I can also understand people owning rifles and shotguns for recreational activities such as hunting. But what reason is there for civilians to own assault weapons? Can anyone answer that question without preaching fanatical reasons/opinions for it?
     
  4. OnyxKnight_RupenX

    OnyxKnight_RupenX Well-Known Member

    Now I just want to say that I hate guns.
    I know on any debate team in school one of the first thing you learn is never to lead with a statement contradictory to the argument you are making; however I feel the removal of the grade system negates that here. Yes, I do hate guns. I also believe that, now that we have had them for so long, those who will use them to their own ends are going to, whether they are banned or not. Drugs are banned, after all, and many people still use and sell them.
    I don't see any reason for Joe Plumber to stock his house with AR10's or Sniper rifles, or anything like that, but I do think Joe plumber should be allowed to keep a firearm in his house, just in case something happens. And if Joe is a moron, and leaves his kid alone in a scenario in which the kid finds the gun and harms himself...Joe should be put to death as well.
     
  5. iluvfupaburgers

    iluvfupaburgers Well-Known Member

    I believe guns is similar to that of drugs. If its legal, its easier to control. If guns become banned than there will be an increase in contraband guns and therefore less guns that are registered. Banning guns will only make it harder to findoout the owner and dealer of the gun. Not actually decrease significantly the misuse of guns
     
  6. Loonylion

    Loonylion Administrator Staff Member

    half the problem in america is its too easy for people who shouldnt have access to guns to get hold of them. Thats why controls are necessary, despite what the NRA and the gun lobby want people to think. Some people just can't be allowed to have guns because they'll do something like this.
     
  7. iluvfupaburgers

    iluvfupaburgers Well-Known Member

    the problem is that, if you really want something, you can find ways of getting it. if banning guns should happen, i see it as if people that could be "mentally" able to get guns wouldnt be getting them. but those people that are desperate, whatever, would find their means on getting a guns somehow. so i dont really think it would work
     
  8. nex26

    nex26 Well-Known Member

    Ok, let me try and get my head round this. You think killing is wrong yet you support the death penalty, being used on innocent people nonetheless.

    Well that escalated quickly.
     
  9. Alias1983

    Alias1983 Well-Known Member

    The bad people will still get guns, look at Chicago, they got some of the strongest gun control laws yet the gang bangers are still killing each other with guns.

    and most of the deaths from guns in america are from gangs, suicides and what have you, these mass shootings are a rarity and imo its terrorist brainwashing that is causing good americans to go bad and cause a mass shootem up.
     
  10. msg2009

    msg2009 Romulations sexiest member

    You can get an illegal gun here in the UK quite easily even with them being banned so it's impossible to stop it in the US. They're just gonna have to live with it.
     
  11. Loonylion

    Loonylion Administrator Staff Member

    Doesn't look that way to me, at least three within a month. and terrorist brainwashing? more like mentally unstable people who shouldn't have access to guns getting their hands on them.
     
  12. calvin_0

    calvin_0 Well-Known Member

    people who can bare arms should be grateful that the country they live in allow them to do so. some country like malaysia where the citizen cant even bare a knife and yet we still have armed assault from simple knife to gun.

    gun arent the problem, its the people. think about where gun shooting normally happen, it happen at school and public area, usually those so call "gun free zone". you almost never heard of a gun shooting happen at the heavily armed places like the gun festival (if there is such thing) or gun shop. why is that? because people cant fight back. when come to people with gun vs people without gun, people without gun always loses.

    if everyone in the world is allow to bare arms, i could guarantee you that gun shooting will drop dramatically because most people are good, so good people with gun out numbered bad people with guns. so anyone who come in a take a shoot would be gunned down on the spot minimizing the casualty. it also act as a deterrence to other crime like mugged or rape because criminal would think twice before attacking anyone.

    i'm not saying gun would solve all the problem, but you shouldnt blame the gun for something that people do. gun is an excellent tool and people who can bare it should be thankful and people who cant bare it should fight for a right to bare it.

    remember, when you ban gun, only outlaw would have gun.
     
  13. Loonylion

    Loonylion Administrator Staff Member

    if everyone had guns there'd be MORE shootings not less. There's a hell of a lot of nutcases in this world and the vast majority of them never get near a gun, because they are rightfully never given the opportunity. If you give them all guns they'll shoot people, regardless of how many sane people are armed. You suggest that gun free zones contribute to the problem, do they really? remember the fort hood shooting took place on a military base, there were plenty of guns there and a psychopath still managed to kill numerous people.

    Gun control is not about preventing the citizenry from having guns, as the NRA want people to believe, it's about keeping them out of the hands of people who can't be trusted to handle them responsibly. I've seen both sides of the fence, I live in a country where handguns are banned and sporting weapons strictly controlled, but I also have had firearms training and experience handling them. They're not just tools, they're lethal weapons and need to be kept out of the wrong hands. I knew what I was dealing with and was professionally instructed in how to handle guns safely. Even when I'm only using a BB gun I still follow the training I received for live firearms, because BB guns can also be lethal at close range. it's critical that people who possess and operate firearms understand and respect that the equipment they are using is lethal. Some people are just not capable of that, and it is them, as well as those of unsound mind, who cannot be allowed access to firearms.

    Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates per capita in the world, and a very low rate of shootings, because gun ownership is restricted to people of sound mind only and undoubtedly very strict checks are carried out to ensure that the person in question is of sound mind and has the self control to possess a weapon before it is issued to them.

    As Hypr said, I see no need for citizens to have access to assault rifiles, bazookas, grenades or similar military hardware. Those are not defensive weapons, they are offensive and cannot ever be anything else, therefore they have no place outside of a military force.

    If America is serious about cutting shooting deaths, then there are ways of achieving that, but the NRA/gun lobby would never allow them to be considered. Things like tighter control over who can own guns (to make it harder for insane people to get them), requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in locked safes when not in use (to prevent people committing crimes with other people's guns) and restricting the type of weapons citizens can own, and the magazine capacity/rate of fire of said guns.

    The Sandy Hook shooter used a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine (NOT an assault rifle as some journalists erroneously claimed). Would he have killed as many people if all he had was a bolt action rifle with 5 round clips? I doubt it, the rate of fire would have been much lower and he would have spent more time reloading. But that weapon would have been perfectly adequate for defending a house or even hunting for sport.

    He also had semi automatic pistols which he apparently did not use. What if they had been 6 shot revolvers? that would be perfectly adequate for self defence, but not really suitable for going on a killing spree because once you've emptied all the chambers it takes much longer to reload than a glock, during which time someone could have disarmed him. Hell, a single shot muzzle loader would probably be adequate for personal defence, because if you miss the first shot you're probably screwed regardless of how much ammo there is left in the weapon.
     
  14. insanecrazy07

    insanecrazy07 Well-Known Member

    I need to point out that those that were on base were not allowed to carry their weapons unless they were of officer rank or higher.

    This, no matter which way you want to put it, was a gun free zone.

    As far as assault weapons go, each and every one of you are thinking of semi-automatic rifles, not assault rifles. We do not have full-auto capability, not without at least a Class III license or a license through a Class III dealer. These also cost $15000+ to own because they must be pre-ban May 19th, 1986 and they're obviously quite rare to have. The ones you see at gun shops are semi-auto, and fire .223 Remington (AR-15s) or 7.62x39mm (AK-47s, AKMs).

    The problem I have with banning these types of rifles is that these politicians are banning simply because of the way they look and what extra features they have (collapsible stock, pistol grip, tactical rails, foregrip, solely on the basis that these features allow hip-firing easier, which is false; it's quite the opposite)...at least that was originally what they were banning them for. Now they're banning them simply because they're semi-automatic. The worrisome part is that most rifles and handguns ARE semi-automatic and banning them based on their action essential bans 90% of all firearms. I haven't read the latest banlist, but guns like Glocks are also capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and most people who conceal carry, carry a Glock or a Sig that holds more than 10 rounds.

    What also bugs me is that less than 5% of all gun-related crimes in the U.S. are committed with a rifle (in general, not necessarily semi-auto, or "assault") and they want to ban something that contributes less than 5% to the problem. If anything, ban cheap .22 caliber pistols, because these are the most commonly used guns to commit crimes with.

    The sole reason for owning these types of rifles is to have the ability to resist an oppressive government be it our own or an outside entity; the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment wasn't created to justify hunting or even self-defense. It was put in place to put the government in check.

    The second, somewhat less purpose-built, but still very practical reason for owning such a rifle is for home protection. Nothing is better served as home protection than 30 rounds of .223, or 30 rounds of any rifle centerfire caliber. 30 is better than 5, and is better in rapid succession and not a 1-second pause in between shots, and a 6-second pause in between reloading. A shotgun also serves as a very deadly home defense option but what you gain in sheer power, you lose in capacity, rate of fire, and reloading speed. If I have more than one intruder, I'd want the most capacity, the fastest reload rate, and the fastest fire rate. I don't want to be the guy that has to pump in between each shot, and fumble around with shells after 5 shots. Why? Because you're most likely a dead man by that point.

    If we take away 90% of the guns in circulation in one swift move (in a utopian sort of perfect world way), our gun violence will go down, I'm not disagreeing with that, but stabbings, beatings, muggings will increase to meet the same level of crime, if not more than what it already is. Why more? Because there's less people who are able to defend themselves from these types of attacks. What bugs me is that the FBI includes justified homicides with their gun-related death statistics, and a good chunk of the deaths yearly are simply dead criminals. I believe it was around 300. That's one almost every day.

    Criminals prey on the weak and helpless, or those that appear to be. Being armed allows someone who would not normally be able to defend themselves (think old frail lady) a better chance of survival than not being armed.

    If we increase the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, sure, we'll have more gun-related deaths. Hopefully, we'll also have less stabbings, less beatings, less muggings, and just more dead criminals. Sure, we'll also get more cases of negligence and irresponsibility. There will always be stupid people out there. I'd much rather deal with formerly law-abiding idiots than deal with hardened criminals.

    When I walk into a gun free zone, each and every person on the premises most likely doesn't have a gun. If they do, they better be law enforcement or they're a felon (or future felon). It creates opportunity for criminals to walk in, and wreak havoc with little to no resistance.

    Now if I'm at a place that welcomes concealed carry, or hell, even open carry, it presents a much less appealing opportunity to walk in, and wreak havoc. If you do manage to do that, the chances of you walking away unscathed is very slim. Concealed carry, individually, presents someone a method to defend themselves. Collectively, it serves as a deterrence.

    For the people that think that our current gun laws are too lax, I bet none of you would be able to get a gun LEGALLY here in the States without first going through an instant criminal background check. And I bet most of you would not pass it because you are not a U.S. citizen.

    The way people get guns easily is through people with clean records that then knowingly sell the guns to criminals. That, is a felony and is no longer a legal means of obtaining a firearm. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter did not obtain his guns legally. They were his mother's and he killed her for those guns. She obtained them legally. He did not.

    The only way to stop truly heinous acts of violence is with an armed populace. And I'm not talking 1 or 2 people in a room of 10. I'm talking 9 or 10 people out of 10. Even if you have one bad egg per 10 people who are licensed to carry, the other 9 should be able to stop that threat.

    The problem in society is that people think that all guns are evil, and that all gun owners are evil. What they don't realize is that most concealed pistol license holders would lay down their lives to protect not only themselves and their loved ones, but the people around them as well. And the people that they would gladly protect are the ones who are proposing disarmament.

    Shame on them.
     
  15. calvin_0

    calvin_0 Well-Known Member

    i agree with you, gun should be control, but certainly not ban. like all tool, thing goes bad if it fall into a wrong hand or the user fail to use it properly. everyone who can bare it, should.

    also when you talk about the insanity or mentally unstable, you are talking about an uncontrollable factor here. sane people could snap given the proper condition. in malaysia we have case of sane people who just snap and kill people, even though we dont have guns, people still get killed. when people want to hurt other, they always find a way, no law in the world can stop it.

    like i said earlier, its the people not the gun. taking away the gun doesnt solve everything.
     
  16. Nachtholm

    Nachtholm Member

    Interesting how this has completely avoided the giant legal elephant in the room (For the US at least).

    The Second Amendment of the Constitution:
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    This is up to a wide breadth of interpretation, but bear with me here...

    Before we ask what the point of this is we should ask what the mindset of those who wrote this is. First these people had just rebelled against the government of Great Britain which had been their rulers for longer than any of these people had been alive (since about the late 1560's or just over 220 years at the writing of the Bill of Rights). These people used Minnie ball muskets (the assault weapon of the time, as Minnie balls were much faster to load than traditional free ball muskets having been packaged in paper packets with pre measured gunpowder and requiring about half the amount of ramming) to eject the British authority and establish a governance which more closely reflected the needs of the American population. In the discussion so far we have dwelt on the case for self-defense. In this light, fully automatic assault weaponry is generally overkill. Now what if the point of the second amendment was to assemble a militia to protect the people of the United States against it's own Federal government? Having come from a rebellion, the framers of the constitution were obviously not against the idea of ejecting a government which does not meet the needs of the people. Of particular note is the phrase "...for the security of a _Free_ State..." This has nothing to do with protecting the government, who has their own military, but the free state.

    TLDR: Perhaps we were given the second amendment and a ton of assault weapons not to fight crooks, but to attack the Federal government should it screw the pooch. Hence the freedom to have the same personal arms as the military.
     
  17. insanecrazy07

    insanecrazy07 Well-Known Member

    That is the point of the Second Amendment. It's to shoot at your own treacherous government.

    Our Second Amendment Rights have been infringed a countless number of times. It is illegal to possess ANY explosive or explosive device other than smokeless powder and maybe tannerite without some sort of license or approval. That is an infringement. We can't have Short-barreled rifles or shotguns without Federal government approval. That is another infringement. Same with select-fire and full-autos. Forget about anything considered a "destructive device," in most cases .501 caliber and over.

    The crooks already have all of this shit. We law-abiding citizens (soon to be outlaws) have bastardized and castrated weaponry.
     
  18. Tesla

    Tesla New Member

    Great points and well said. Created fear for the purpose of disarming civilians is what Hitler did. Ask someone from Hitlers concentration camps who benefits from disarming the public. The firearm fearporn created through MSM creates an irrational, emotion based response to a perceived problem which does not exist… as you pointed out the firearm stats are skewed and that says allot about the motivations of the individuals misrepresenting information as fact.
     
  19. insanecrazy07

    insanecrazy07 Well-Known Member

    The cat's out of the bag now.
    https://ghostgunner.net/

    Anyone in the world with electricity, and a computer (and this machine with related supplies) can now CNC AR-15 lower receivers.

    The liberals are freaking way out over this one.
    Helloooooooo AR-15s, 1911s, Glocks, Berettas, and anything else that can fit in that little box. All you really need is the receiver, and then just order a parts kit and assemble (fit) it. I can finally take a bin of parts that's been sitting around collecting dust and turn it into something usable.
     
  20. Niflheim

    Niflheim Horrible evil rat

    "Liberals" freak out over everything. They'd gladly ban everything that they even slightly dislike just like the fascists that they pretend to hate, even if it means losing the freedom that they pretend to love and any chance of defending their misguided ideals that they care so much about.