Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2007-07-23 09:34:06
daddyofdeath
A REAL Combat Engineer in the house
+187|6695|UK Bradford W,Yorks. Age 27
Why can no one ever reply to posts properly, without being complete arseholes on BF2s.com?

Back to topic.
                 On a personal level to protect my family I would like a to own a gun legally here in the UK. For my own piece of mind. But I do understand your fear of 'loonatics' owning a weapon also is quite alarming.
2007-07-23 09:42:32
BALTINS
ಠ_ಠ
+37|6929|Latvia

Braddock wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

People who own guns have small penises. Thread over

...now where did I put that flame proof suit?
Lol...So all IRA's who faught for your freedom have small penises?
They don't have any guns anymore
So they were castrated?

To Topic: AFAIK, in Latvia from the age of 21 you can get a license to own a "Class B" gun (Semi-Auto Pistols) or so.. and I would really want one, considering all those idiots on the streets. For Self Defense of course.
2007-07-23 09:45:54
joker8baller
Member
+68|7109

Pisacis wrote:

I'm aware this is an age-old debate, but selfishly I just wanted some personal interaction with others regarding gun laws and whatnot. So even if this is retreading infinitely covered old ground, fresh debate rarely leads to increased ignorance - it'll be an elucidating discussion for all. Hopefully.

Anyway, my question (and, it has to be said, it goes out mainly to Americans) is simple. How can you justify owning a personal firearm? My personal point of view is that violence begets violence, and the problem is a reactionary, reciprocal one. Between the police, gangs and deranged rednecks, pissing contests over who has the biggest weapon (intentional AND hilarious) lead to people owning M-16s and shit like that. If no-one had these guns in the first place, no-one else would feel the need to go get one for themselves. I know it's a naive position to hold, but if purchasing guns - based on the assumption that a nationwide armistice is impossible - was better controlled, then we wouldn't see the kind of things that are freakishly common in the states.

This leads me on to my second point: massacres. Just go to Wikipedia and look up the "2006 School shooting outbreak", and articles on Columbine, Virginia Tech... the list goes on. If these kids hadn't been able to get their ammo at the fucking supermarket, maybe the thought wouldn't have crossed their minds. How many times have European schoolkids got a little pissed off at the world and killed 30 peers and teachers? That's a rhetorical question.

Anyway, I'm not trying to pretend that I'm being original or groundbreaking or even clever by bringing this up, it's just something I'd like to see discussed in a manner I can take a personal interest in. And on a forum for a video-game in which you shoot people for fun, it's an interesting backdrop to such a question.

Anyway, go wild.
If they're serious about killing people at a school, they'll find weapons one way or another. If you want something to harm another in this world, you can easily get it.

Look at the time before guns. We had swords. People killed each other with swords. We're born violent.
2007-07-23 09:46:44
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6927
People should be responsible for their own self defense. You cannot rely on the police all the time. 

About school shootings: if they had not gotten their guns legally, they would have gotten them illegally.  Ever heard of the Appalachian School of Law shooting?  No?  Well, two students went to their car, got their own guns, and stopped the shooter. 

Gun control is pointless.  It will only take guns away from law abiding citizens, not criminals.
2007-07-23 09:47:53
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6998

Harmor wrote:

I wonder how many people in New Orleans after Katrina wish they had a gun?  Or if someone had a gun in the Virginia Tech Massacre to stop the manic who killed 33 people...
I'm sure plenty of people at Virginia Tech had a gun, most notably the killer himself. Virginia Tech is in America, isn't it?
2007-07-23 09:48:10
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6665|Escea

DesertFox- wrote:

Pisacis wrote:

My personal point of view is that violence begets violence,.....
Stop right there. A gun alone is not violent by any means. A person could go out and aquire every single weapon known to man and not be violent. The violence starts when there is an intent to cause bodily harm upon a person with said firearm, rocket launher, anti-tank mine, or MOAB. There are plenty of gun owners who aren't violent, a group that may very well be the majority. People have seen too many movies when those who have guns are the bad people because a firearm has no other purpose other than to kill humans.....

Hunting, display, target practice, Martian invasion
Hey I r not that violent, or am I?
2007-07-23 09:50:08
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio
Just a little hint.  The only reason that the US exists is guns, they are a tool that can be used for many purposes including revolution.  What is to ensure us that GWB does not declare himself king and almighty ruler?  The fact that there are millions of armed citizens that would take him out.  He would not be so considerate if we were all wealding butter knives.  I do not own a gun nor have I shot one in the past 25 years, not since boy scouts.   I do how ever recognize that a populace with out the ability to defend itself is suseptible to the rule of a power hungry dictator wantabe - like Hillary Clinton.

If I was a depressed ass hat that wanted to kill a large quantity of people, I would use a car bomb if I couldn't get a hold of a gun.  Now that sounds more like an anti american thing to do.

Last edited by KnowMeByTrailOfDead (2007-07-23 09:53:10)

2007-07-23 09:51:37
lavadisk
I am a cat ¦ 3
+369|7272|Denver colorado
Because the 'bad guys' will always have means to get a weapon to hurt you whats the damage in getting one yourself for defense purposes?

I think it's that simple really...

btw, I dont have a gun

Last edited by lavadisk (2007-07-23 09:51:44)

2007-07-23 09:52:38
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|6895|Ontario, Canada

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I wonder how many people in New Orleans after Katrina wish they had a gun?  Or if someone had a gun in the Virginia Tech Massacre to stop the manic who killed 33 people...
I'm sure plenty of people at Virginia Tech had a gun, most notably the killer himself. Virginia Tech is in America, isn't it?
WOW...

just wow.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
2007-07-23 09:52:53
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7069
I currently live in Arizona.  Phoenix area.  I came from Pennsylvania.  I was shocked when I first moved here and went through the grocery store line and the guy in front of me with his Harley shirt had a .44 mag shoulder holstered.  A day later I drove by McDonald's and in the front with the windows I saw two guys with sidearms.  I thought man I'm in for the Wild West.  However, to my surprise, it does seem that with all the weapons out in the open criminals think twice, or at least have to look around before attempting a robbery.  We had some home invasions in the area.  One day we had one where the owner of the home shot both guys entering the home.  Home invasions stopped. 

I personally like to shoot.  I've shot all my life.  Out here the Coyotes are getting very bad.  I think the saying guns don't kill people, people kill people is spot on.  If we apply the same logic to drinking and driving as gun control.  We'd be taking away cars now wouldn't we.
2007-07-23 09:55:27
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6732|Éire

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Just a little hint.  The only reason that the US exists is guns, they are a tool that can be used for many purposes including revolution.  What is to ensure us that GWB does not declare himself king and almighty ruler?  The fact that there are millions of armed citizens that would take him out.  He would not be so considerate if we were all wealding butter knives.  I do not own a gun nor have I shot one in the past 25 years, not since boy scouts.   I do how ever recognize that a populace with out the ability to defend itself is suseptible to the rule of a power hungry dictator wantabe - like Hillay Clinton.
Paranoid delusions! What about all the countries whose democracies have survived despite having very few guns among the general population?

And if GWB did want to declare himself emperor or King he would need the support of the military and if he had that I don't think he'd be too worried about a load of hand guns and some M16s here and there.
2007-07-23 10:14:53
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio

Braddock wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

Just a little hint.  The only reason that the US exists is guns, they are a tool that can be used for many purposes including revolution.  What is to ensure us that GWB does not declare himself king and almighty ruler?  The fact that there are millions of armed citizens that would take him out.  He would not be so considerate if we were all wealding butter knives.  I do not own a gun nor have I shot one in the past 25 years, not since boy scouts.   I do how ever recognize that a populace with out the ability to defend itself is suseptible to the rule of a power hungry dictator wantabe - like Hillay Clinton.
Paranoid delusions! What about all the countries whose democracies have survived despite having very few guns among the general population?

And if GWB did want to declare himself emperor or King he would need the support of the military and if he had that I don't think he'd be too worried about a load of hand guns and some M16s here and there.
If I remember, King George had the support of his military and he was not able to stop susession.

If you havn't noticed, there is an aweful lot of fear mongering going on with the whole "War on terror" ideology.  It would not take much for the majority party to continue to scare the populus into giving away the remaining freedoms we have.  All they have to do is convince the pentagon that there is an "Iminent threat" and that they need to act to save our way of life.  That usually stirs the pot pretty good.

Have you not noticed that the weapon of choice in other countries is suicide bombers, our fanatics are still commiting suicide, just by police.

In the US we fear a low riding car with a bunch of thugs in it.  Over seas, you fear a low riding car with one man in it.

Last edited by KnowMeByTrailOfDead (2007-07-23 10:17:37)

2007-07-23 10:17:07
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6998

d4rkst4r wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I wonder how many people in New Orleans after Katrina wish they had a gun?  Or if someone had a gun in the Virginia Tech Massacre to stop the manic who killed 33 people...
I'm sure plenty of people at Virginia Tech had a gun, most notably the killer himself. Virginia Tech is in America, isn't it?
WOW...

just wow.
Yeah it's crazy isn't it? A college full of people and nobody packing a glock except for Mr. AngryKorean. They should be mandatory.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-23 10:17:30)

2007-07-23 10:19:09
Kurazoo
Pheasant Plucker
+440|7127|West Yorkshire, U.K
Try and tell the rednecks that.
2007-07-23 10:20:13
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

d4rkst4r wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


I'm sure plenty of people at Virginia Tech had a gun, most notably the killer himself. Virginia Tech is in America, isn't it?
WOW...

just wow.
Yeah it's crazy isn't it? A college full of people and nobody packing a glock except for Mr. AngryKorean. They should be mandatory.
Funny how it was "Mr. AngryKorean" and not angry American or Dumb redneck with shot gun.  Even your description doesn't pain a picture of a bunch of crazy Americans shooting each other.
2007-07-23 10:22:59
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6998

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

d4rkst4r wrote:


WOW...

just wow.
Yeah it's crazy isn't it? A college full of people and nobody packing a glock except for Mr. AngryKorean. They should be mandatory.
Funny how it was "Mr. AngryKorean" and not angry American or Dumb redneck with shot gun.  Even your description doesn't pain a picture of a bunch of crazy Americans shooting each other.
Are you suggesting Americans are incapable of such an act?
2007-07-23 10:24:33
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Yeah it's crazy isn't it? A college full of people and nobody packing a glock except for Mr. AngryKorean. They should be mandatory.
Funny how it was "Mr. AngryKorean" and not angry American or Dumb redneck with shot gun.  Even your description doesn't pain a picture of a bunch of crazy Americans shooting each other.
Are you suggesting Americans are incapable of such an act?
Not at all, just usually the argument is how all us crazy Americans are busy killing each other with our legal guns, then you use a description that paints a different picture all together, reguardless of the fact that he was a legal citizen.
2007-07-23 10:25:07
PureFodder
Member
+225|6728
Ok, if we're going to do gun ownership, here's some of the main points as I see them.

For gun ownership

- Used for hunting, sport, or leisure
- If criminals think your armed, they are less likely to commit crimes for fear of being shot. (crime deterrence)
- It levels the playing field to some extent as the old and infirm have more chance to defend themselves. (crime defence)
- Range/target shooting as a sport or leisure activity.
- keeping the government in check.
- Criminals have guns anyway, limiting law abiding citizens ownership only makes it easier for criminals. (laws only affect the lawful)
- A gun is a tool, if you ban guns criminals will simply use a knife.

Against gun ownership
- The main source of illegal guns is legal gun owners. If the general public don't have them then the criminals will loose their main supplier.
- Safety risks ie. kids finding guns and shooting themselves, people mistaking family members for intruders and shooting them.
- Escalation of violence. Gun crime is higher in countries with legal civilian gun ownership. (the criminals need guns to protect themselves and have far easier access to guns)
- A criminal with a gun is significantly more likely to be successful than an unarmed one. (by forcing criminals to be armed, they actually get more likely to succeed at committing crime, not less likely)
- Guns are crap at stopping tanks and bombers hence would be useless at stopping the army. If the army sides with the government or the people or splits between them, ultimately it's the army that will determine who wins. Random civilians with small arms will just get themselves killed.
- The abnormally high homicide, rape and violent crime rates in the US indicate that gun ownership doesn't deter or stop criminals, it appears to make it easier for them.
- There are plenty of other hobbies that don't involve guns, just do one of them instead.


Personally I think the general public don't need firearms, but I also believe that the USA has managed to find the absolute worst of all worlds. The guns are available, so the criminals have both the motivation and easy opportunity to get a gun, but the law abiding citizens do not have the freedom to make the most out of their gun ownership to counter the problems that are created when large numbers of criminals are armed (gun-free zones, it's not legal to carry a concealed weapon in some areas etc.). Both sides have a case and if either side won on the issue it would be better than the current crappy middle ground that currently exists.
2007-07-23 10:26:12
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6998

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:


Funny how it was "Mr. AngryKorean" and not angry American or Dumb redneck with shot gun.  Even your description doesn't pain a picture of a bunch of crazy Americans shooting each other.
Are you suggesting Americans are incapable of such an act?
Not at all, just usually the argument is how all us crazy Americans are busy killing each other with our legal guns, then you use a description that paints a different picture all together, reguardless of the fact that he was a legal citizen.
Personally I couldn't care less what you guys do within your own borders.
2007-07-23 10:34:25
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Are you suggesting Americans are incapable of such an act?
Not at all, just usually the argument is how all us crazy Americans are busy killing each other with our legal guns, then you use a description that paints a different picture all together, reguardless of the fact that he was a legal citizen.
Personally I couldn't care less what you guys do within your own borders.
Ok, so you are counter arguing earlier statements but you don't particularly care, gotcha, I will move on to someone with comething contructive to say.
2007-07-23 10:51:54
Home
Section.80
+447|7290|Seattle, Washington, USA

One argument that I don't often see mentioned is the Declaration of Independence giving us the right to abolish (essentially revolt) against the government, should it become oppresive and unjust. How are we supposed to do that without guns?
2007-07-23 10:53:09
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio

Home wrote:

One argument that I don't often see mentioned is the Declaration of Independence giving us the right to abolish (essentially revolt) against the government, should it become oppresive and unjust. How are we supposed to do that without guns?
It has been mentioned several times, just not worded quite the same way.
2007-07-23 11:00:30
PureFodder
Member
+225|6728

Home wrote:

One argument that I don't often see mentioned is the Declaration of Independence giving us the right to abolish (essentially revolt) against the government, should it become oppresive and unjust. How are we supposed to do that without guns?
https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1a1-tank-sym.jpg
How are you supposed to overthrow the government with small arms? Surely whoever the military side with will be the side that wins, hence the civilians don't have any use for guns when trying to overthrow the government, all you really should be concentrating on is convincing the military to join your cause.
2007-07-23 11:06:51
KnowMeByTrailOfDead
Jackass of all Trades
+62|7123|Dayton, Ohio

PureFodder wrote:

Home wrote:

One argument that I don't often see mentioned is the Declaration of Independence giving us the right to abolish (essentially revolt) against the government, should it become oppresive and unjust. How are we supposed to do that without guns?
How are you supposed to overthrow the government with small arms? Surely whoever the military side with will be the side that wins, hence the civilians don't have any use for guns when trying to overthrow the government, all you really should be concentrating on is convincing the military to join your cause.
So do you suggest we wait to be captured so that we have the opportunity to plead our case with the lowliest members of the military, or band together to attempt a resistance/insurgency.

Last edited by KnowMeByTrailOfDead (2007-07-23 11:07:31)

2007-07-23 11:11:09
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6836|The Gem Saloon
oh my god.

i definitely want to punch a baby right now.





ok, first, Cam......the VT thing. that issues comes from the "Gun Free Zones." bottom line.....the public followed the rules, the criminal didnt and they got shot for it, end of.


whoever is talking about a revolution being impossible because of the military.
if you dont live here, you really dont know what you are talking about. you DONT know what we have access too, and you dont know how we would be able to fight......but that joint will get smoked when it is rolled.


@OP
why do i want guns?

protection.
i know, i know, "if there werent any guns blah blah blah...", but there are, and there is nothing that ANYONE can do about it.
any solutions that are provided will not work.
this topic is like shooting a dead horse

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard