Gun Control

[SVelasquez]

This sparked quite a debate on another set of forums I used to be on and it will most likely get y'all talking in here.

Now I am highly against gun control in general because everybody has a basic right to defend him or herself and nowadays that means owning a firearm. No matter where you live, you constantly live under the threat of some sort of armed attack involving gun control by a gang of some sort. Even if you banned the ownership of guns from every citizen in the world, criminals would be able to get guns from the black market or manufacture their own makeshift weapons. How will we thrive as a race if we can't defend ourselves against this threat? Is gun control really necessary? I think not, what about you?

[lion_roog]

I am against many aspects of gun control, too. Even though I support some gun control, such as not letting people who have committed crimes with guns be allowed to own them. I believe I should have the right to defend myself within reason instead of depending on the government (police, etc) to protect me.

[Darkslash]

How would the Virginia Tech massacre have been different had students been allowed to carry weapons?

[SVelasquez]

I would say that if the students were allowed weapons, somebody might have been able to neutralize the shooter (I don't want to type his name, but we all know it) before that many lives were lost. Maybe he would actually be in a mental hospital getting help because he probably wouldn't have been killed if somebody got a NEUTRALIZING (in the arm or legs) shot to hit him.

[Sadiki]

I take a diffrend side on this issue as gun control being good thing. Thought I know it's not as easy to control as big nation as US, over here the gun control works pretty good and you are only allowed to carry a gun with a license and only in reason of hunting. shooting someone even for a self defense is a crime no matter if the other has a gun or not, here only ones that are allowed to shoot with any chance of getting away with it is police / military police.

And as far as I know we have bearly had any gun insidence... probably less than 50 people die from shooting per year and that is pretty good if you ask me. But as I said Finland is quite diffrend from US.

[imported_kiara]

.. crazeh americans and their gun problems :lol:

In Europe you dont have to worry about all that, and you dont live under a threat here so you most likely dont need a gun where ever you go or not go.

Of course theres exceptions buuut ..

[Elly]

^ We don't have gun problems...

We just have crazies... with the guns...

I agree with Roog, and however there should be some type/s of gun control. These are preventive measures that may or may not help. Aboriginal confines that may not agree because people can't conform to basic legality, this too protects you from apprehension and stupidity.

Bear arms with responsibility, so that no-one else has to...

[imported_kiara]

Originally posted by Elly
^ We don't have gun problems...

We just have crazies... with the guns...



.. whats the difference? Its still a problem with the gun .. wether its about the person or controlls or gun itself .. right? x)

[KovuTN]

Im in the Swiss Army (as it's a militia) and therefore have an assault rifle at home.

Yet, I have to say that NOBODY who doesn't have the training and drill for handling a weapon, should be allowed to have one.

Pragmatic shooting practice is important, not only for your own safety, also to guarantee that you don't kill the one you eventually have to shoot at. As long as we're not in some kind of war, we're training guard shooting, which means to simply make a person unable performing a threat to yourself or your friends. Such a shot is usually placed at the legs or arms of the target, but never in a vital area. Said shot has to be placed correctly without thinking too much, and that again means a lot of training.

In my opinion, a civil person is unable to handle that correctly - as the firearm will always be used in stress situations, where the shooter - and specially an untrained shooter - has almost no self-control.

[Azerane]

Me personally, I'm pretty much all for gun control. We have fairly strict rules regarding guns over hear, requiring lisences and permits etc. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that other places have, that if you simply want to own a gun, you can, and it doesn't really matter who you are. Guns are a powerful tool, and they give the people who are holding them, a whole lotta power they might not have had before.
And like KovuTN was saying about people requiring training, I certainly wouldn't trust myself with a gun. I trust myself enough not to be stupid and wave it around the place, but I really have no idea how to handle a gun, emotionally as well. But that's just me. I guess it all depends on the person.

[lion_roog]

I think whether or not you're for gun control depends partially on where you live (as some people have hinted at already). For instance, when I can afford it, I'm going to purchase a firearm and get it licensed if that doesn't cost too much (you can legally own a firearm in Arizona unlicensed). If someone enters your place, a gun would be the most effective way of putting them down, especially if they're high on something. But since most murders (in America at least) are done by someone you know, I guess it's the people you know who you should be most cautious of.

[Darkslash]

Posted by: STM

Thought I know it's not as easy to control as big nation as US, over here the gun control works pretty good
You make a good point; one I haven't heard that much in any gun control discussion I've had: the need for personal protection and the effectiveness of gun control vary by country and culture.

[KovuTN]

Originally posted by lion_roog
I think whether or not you're for gun control depends partially on where you live (as some people have hinted at already). For instance, when I can afford it, I'm going to purchase a firearm and get it licensed if that doesn't cost too much (you can legally own a firearm in Arizona unlicensed). If someone enters your place, a gun would be the most effective way of putting them down, especially if they're high on something. But since most murders (in America at least) are done by someone you know, I guess it's the people you know who you should be most cautious of.
The point is: the US have these problems exactly because just every idiot can get a firearm. It's a homemade problem that could be solved if people would need to have licenses and have to prove their hours of training in order that they can own a gun.

[TX-101]

I support gun control andd i would even set up an bullet and any kind of ammo control. Yes everyone has right to defent himself- but why has to be done with guns? no wonder in USA there are so many murders. I live peacefully here and i have no gun and no fear of guns or anyone. Most people think gun is not necesarry and they avoid them. I rather dont have it and get and give few punches than shots if there is a fight. at least i know i will return home alive.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by KovuTN
Im in the Swiss Army (as it's a militia) and therefore have an assault rifle at home.

Yet, I have to say that NOBODY who doesn't have the training and drill for handling a weapon, should be allowed to have one.

Pragmatic shooting practice is important, not only for your own safety, also to guarantee that you don't kill the one you eventually have to shoot at.

There's never a guarantee that you won't kill the person you shoot. A shot to any major part of the body will kill a person if that person is not treated immediately. I've always been taught to never raise a gun to a person you don't intend to kill. If I'm in a situation that requires shooting someone, I'm shooting multiple rounds to the chest. If I'm in a situation where I think I should be shooting a person in the knees or arms so I don't immediately kill the person, then I'm not in a situation where I should be shooting at all.

On gun control, I believe that ownership of arms is a basal right that all American's should have unless taken away individually by a court of law for gun related criminal acts. By the by, I've lived around guns my whole life being from a rural community in the US, and I've also lived a relatively peaceful life. Never had to point a gun at somoene or anything like that. Personally, I think people who haven't lived around responsible gun owners for a good portion of their life are the biggest threat.

[KovuTN]

Originally posted by pntbll248
[B]There's never a guarantee that you won't kill the person you shoot. A shot to any major part of the body will kill a person if that person is not treated immediately.
The point is that you don't shoot the torso or head. A proper shot should simply stop the aggressor, never kill him. Of course, you need to treat that person then, but it's better being able to treat him instead of no longer being able to do so.


I've always been taught to never raise a gun to a person you don't intend to kill. If I'm in a situation that requires shooting someone, I'm shooting multiple rounds to the chest.
Which is wrong education. In the army we had to learn the following sentence: "Always be aware of your target", which doesn't mean anything different than "don't point your gun at something you don't want to hit". It's never wise to use a gun with the intention to "kill" someone.


If I'm in a situation where I think I should be shooting a person in the knees or arms so I don't immediately kill the person, then I'm not in a situation where I should be shooting at all.
Shall I invite you to a training with my company? ;)

[Juniper]

Originally posted by KovuTN
Shall I invite you to a training with my company? ;)

Sure, tell ya what, if you get me a day of training with your company, maybe I'll be able to get ya'll back on track. ;)

[TX-101]

Originally posted by KovuTN
Shall I invite you to a training with my company? ;)

HAHA.. Many people would need that.
I dont understand how in USA you can get a gun just becouse its your right even if your a total psycho.
You have to do a test here to say if you are normal enough, then learn all about guns and safety and even in that you get tested. you have to get a licence to prove your knowledge and all.

[Dyani]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A lot of the gun problems governments have is mostly due to the aggressor's history. Someone being bullied at school could be bringing a gun to school to teach his attackers a lesson. Its not good, but hardly unfair.

I don't think guns should be allowed in the hands of the common people, but, I don't know what its like to be afriad of walking around a street corner for fear of being shot in the back. A lot of our opinions on this are based on our own experiences. Some will be pro-everyone-have-guns maybe because they don't know the consequence. Some will be very against it maybe because they're naive enough to hope that, without guns, humanities main problems would be solved. I mention those thoughts because I swing from either side. I don't like any kind of modern weapon, its cowardly and too easy to get. But, just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are a pscyho waiting for a mass murder, but neither will they be neglecting a gun should the occasion to use it arise.

I don't like guns. Or bombs. Or tanks. Or any type of modern weapon. I wish we never had the imagination for it. Its not a proud thing, having such a powerful imagination to think up a weapon that can level entire cities in moments. Thats not clever. It wasn't clever in Hiroshima and it still isn't now.

My opinions. Sorry if they offend. Thats if anyone reads it.

[Shatara]

Hmm, a few things to tackle here...


shooting someone even for a self defense is a crimethis is less gun control and more crime, but its really sad when a government puts its criminals before its law abiding citizens... Only being able to ask nicely not to have your brains blown out by a criminal with god-only-knows-what intentions really doesnt fly...


.. whats the difference? Its still a problem with the gun .. wether its about the person or controlls or gun itself .. right? x)A better way to say it, is we dont have a gun problem, we have a crime problem. A gun is merely a tool, which can be weilded for good, or for evil. No amount of laws will affect those who by definition, have no regard for the law.


Pragmatic shooting practice is important, not only for your own safety,Very true.

Such a shot is usually placed at the legs or arms of the target, but never in a vital area.Very...not. You are the first person I've EVER seen claim such. Aiming at extremities puts both yourself and those around you at risk, as you are both more likely to miss (you're not clint eastwood), and less likely to disable your target. If it isn't worth killing over, its not worth DRAWING over. Guns are lethal force. If you are not prepared to kill, you should not be handling firearms in a defensive capacity. To reiterate:
If I'm in a situation where I think I should be shooting a person in the knees or arms so I don't immediately kill the person, then I'm not in a situation where I should be shooting at all.QFE.


I'm just not comfortable with the idea that other places have, that if you simply want to own a gun, you can, and it doesn't really matter who you are.
The point is: the US have these problems exactly because just every idiot can get a firearm.
I dont understand how in USA you can get a gun just becouse its your right even if your a total psycho.These arent really accurate. You cannot get a gun if you have a felony record. You cannot get a gun if you have a restraining order against you. Nor if you are mentally ill. Nor if you have a history of domestic violence. Indivudual states tend to vary, though these tend to hold true in most places AFAIK. Aside from the above (and maybe some things I've missed), theres no real reason to bar one from owning firearms.


Guns are a powerful tool, and they give the people who are holding them, a whole lotta powerThis is a key, important statement. Guns are indeed a powerful tool. This country was founded on the notion that the power should lie with the people, and without that power, talk of free speech and religion is just talk. Sorry for invoking Godwin, but the first thing Hitler did was take the guns. I dont think I need to finish that story, we know the rest.

Even outside such worst-case doomsday scenarios, the power of the gun is highly important. The list of things a wheelchair-bound 80 year old can succesfully use to protect their home and self against a halfdozen teenage thugs is VERY short.


Yes everyone has right to defent himself- but why has to be done with guns?Because the gun is THE best tool for the job. I am not a large person. If some 300-pound thug corners me in an alley, I'm screwed. More so if he has a knife. But if I have a gun, suddenly his size advantage is completely negated. I reemphasize the 80-year old granny from earlier in this post. If the other guy has a gun, nothing short of your own firearm even gives a chance (even then you have serious issues).


doesn't mean anything different than "don't point your gun at something you don't want to hit". It's never wise to use a gun with the intention to "kill" someone.Not quite. It's "Don't point your gun at something you wouldn't want dead." Firearms are lethal force.


It wasn't clever in Hiroshima and it still isn't now.Forgive the minor hyjack, and not saying I'm proud of it, but you must remember the alternative was full scale invasion of the mainland. Okinawa was considered the 'dress rehersal' for such an invasion, and it saw the bloodiest fighting of the entire war. The vast majority of troops and civilians on the island either fought to the death, or threw themselves over the cliffs to avoid capture. Upscaling that to the Japanese mainland, the leveling of two cities would have paled in comparison bloodbath that would have ensued.

[TX-101]

this thread is getting complicatd...
I like guns. i like to try them. i am also in airsoft club what some ppl think its terrible even there to shoot people. I know a lot about guns becouse i always liked them.

Whatever its said 1 thing is for sure...

... there is one person afraid when gun is loaded ... But there are two in fear when it's empty.

[Dyani]

I've just seen this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7082795.stm) Use as a reference if you wish. Otherwise I stick to my last post.

Shatara : I think the A-Bomb was dropped to mainly test it out. The war was all but finished. It is well known that the Japanese were inhumane with their treatment of captured enemies, but to level two huge cites, wiping out massive numbers of people and to curse the survivors with genetic disorders for many generations to come.. it seems worse than what could have been. Anyway, thats deviating from guns, so carry on! ^_^

TX : I don't believe that liking guns means that guns are good for the public. And you cannot dare claim that "there is one person afraid when gun is loaded". Fear makes people pull the trigger. If you aren't afraid when you are facing a real situation where a gun may be fired by you or at you, then its disturbing at the very least.

You may want to defend yourself with a gun, but doesn't that make you as bad as the people you are afriad of?

[KovuTN]

Originally posted by Shatara
Very...not. You are the first person I've EVER seen claim such. Aiming at extremities puts both yourself and those around you at risk, as you are both more likely to miss (you're not clint eastwood),
Then tell me why I always hit the (c) and (d) sections [arms and legs] of the target table ;)
You'd be surprised how good swiss soldiers are at the shooting range.

Also, I wonder what qualifies you to classify my shooting without ever having met me at a shooting certification.

Actually - it's quite simple - compare mid european countries with the US. Take the licensing systems, the practice of military and police, and compare the number of murders and self-defence kills of these countries - you'll see, there's a significant difference. (I don't yet have any statistics ready to show you, but I'll try to get them from our admin website)

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Dyani
You may want to defend yourself with a gun, but doesn't that make you as bad as the people you are afriad of?

Not at all, no. In a true case of self-defense, you are a human being that is in an immediate threat of being seriously harmed or killed, and you need to do whatever it takes to ensure your survival. Self-defense with any weapon isn't a matter of a "Fair fight," nor is it a matter of cowardice as your said before , it's a matter of doing what you need to do to stay alive.

Like Shatara, I'm not a big guy. If someone jumps me with a knife, I'm not going to holster my gun because he has a less powerful weapon, I will shoot him because I have the inherent right to ensure my safety and the safety of those innocent people around me. I'm not going to try to shoot the knife out of his hand because that's a very small, quickly moving target. If I miss, he can potentially throw that knife and end my life, I don't know his skills with said weapon. I won't shoot him in the knees, again because that's a hard target to hit and can still leave him armed. Even his head is a relatively small target. If I miss in any of those situations, as Shatara said, that bullet can injure or kill the innocent people around me. I will shoot into the torso, because that's the biggest body target and most likely to drop that person in the first shot. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not the gambling type, and I very much enjoy being alive. I don't consider myself a violent person, I'm a pacifist by moral and religious conviction, and nowadays I do anything I can to avoid violent confrontation. That said, I fully believe that everyone has a right to self-defense, and as I said earlier, I define self-defense as taking the course of action most likely to protect one's life and the life of those around them.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Dyani

You may want to defend yourself with a gun, but doesn't that make you as bad as the people you are afriad of?

The problem with this perspective is that it disregards motive. I don't have any ill intent on my part if I should use my weapon (whether it be a gun, knife, or my fists) in self defense.

[TX-101]

to Dyani... You missunderstood what i meant.
It's a proverb.
"there is one person afraid when gun is loaded ... But there are two in fear when it's empty."

When loaded - the aimed one is afraid
when empty - both guner and aimed one are afraid. one is afraid of the gun. other one becouse he knows he has an empty gun.

But the point wasnt about who is more afraid or so. The point is that gun is a dangerous thing no matter what.

I've learned also "the gun is never empty". Treat it like its full at all times.

Grandad told me how "also an empty gun shoots once per 10 years."
you mustnt take that literaly, i hope you understand what i'm trying to say. As long as there are guns there will be also danger.

[Dyani]

PntBall - I wouldn't have thought that, in America where gun ownership is so rife, your aggressor would be carrying a knife. If there is a chance of someone having superior weapons to you, you would get yourself have equal standing, surely? Heh, kind of the story of the world really.

Roog - Very fair point. I bow to your intelligent thinking! _O_

TX - aaahhh sorry I misunderstood what you meant. Its all to do with the potential threat of a gun. Whether empty or full, the aggressor is faced with a gun. I get you now. _O_

[Shatara]

Originally posted by Dyani
(A-bomb stuff)The point was, after an invasion there may not have been much country left to rebuild. But anyway, its not the A-bomb thread, so I'll drop it.


TX : I don't believe that liking guns means that guns are good for the public. And you cannot dare claim that "there is one person afraid when gun is loaded". Fear makes people pull the trigger. If you aren't afraid when you are facing a real situation where a gun may be fired by you or at you, then its disturbing at the very least.There are different levels of fear. Quite a difference between 'oh crap, he wants to kill me' and 'oh crap, he wants to kill me and there is nothing I can do about it'.


Then tell me why I always hit the (c) and (d) sections [arms and legs] of the target table ;)Perhaps because the target table isn't shooting back? ;) I'm also curious what range this is at, with what weapon, and how long you have to make such shots. I admit I don't know how well you can shoot, but I truly doubt you have Mr. Eastwood's marksmanship, which is 'however much the plot requires'.

Another thing you seem to ignore, is many civilians in the US get more training and range time than military and police. I've read somewhere that the 'shots per incident' is much lower for armed civilians than uniformed law enforcement, by no small margin.

[Elly]

Originally posted by TX-101
I've learned also "the gun is never empty". Treat it like its full at all times.

Grandad told me how "also an empty gun shoots once per 10 years."
you mustnt take that literaly, i hope you understand what i'm trying to say. As long as there are guns there will be also danger.

Well said. :cheese:

Just like "A tool never lies down." Like a hammer, wrench or nail gun.

Metaphorically and your retrospect, it remains - forever a threat.

Guns are designed to kill! -
But they don't have to be.
Sorry had to throw that last line in...