Quantcast

Jump to content


What is your stance?


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#126 travis

travis
  • 5408 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

I own an HK USP .40 Compact and I'm licensed to carry it on my person at all times in a concealed fashion.

I never, ever leave my home without it. The only time it's not attached to my torso when I'm outside of my house is in gov't buildings, schools and airports (where firearms are not permitted), or when I go to the bar. In those instances, it's under the seat of my car.

I've never had to use it to defend myself or anyone else, and I hope I never need to. But I won't hesitate.


Point of that being, I am 100% in favor of controlled gun rights.

#127 Leaf

Leaf
  • 372 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 05:49 PM

I am for the right to own and bare arms... but for security of course ;)

who the hell needs a fully automatic 50 caliber for protection!?!?!? that is just too much... but a semi auto 9mm or 45mm that is cool with me.

#128 travis

travis
  • 5408 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:09 PM

[....]
if you say a gun is to protect yourself then you're assuming everyone else is out to harm you and carries a gun themselves which is obviously not how it is, handguns are designed to kill people and be concealed, it's pretty much the most pathetic way to protect yourself unless you consider stabbing someone in the back or suffocating someone while they sleep is protecting yourself as well since it's essentially the same thing,


A gun is to protect myself WHEN someone is out to harm me. I don't care if they're trying to rob my home, mug me on the street, or want to start a fight because they don't agree with what I've got to say. Their intention IS to harm me or someone I love.
Yes, handguns are designed to injure or kill. That's the fucking point.
Stabbing someone in the back, or suffocating them while they sleep, is nowhere NEAR being the same thing. You do that if they have no intent to cause harm. If I'm going to discharge at a live target, it's because they are attempting to hurt someone.

if there were no guns and people solved their problems with their fists or words the world would be a much better place. Too many innocent people die as a result of gun violence...[..]

Yeah, you're right. No guns, ever. The world would be better off.
But the guy who has a knife or a gun to your back because he wants the cash in your pocket? He doesn't have a problem with you. He wants what you have and will hurt you to get it.
And don't get me wrong, I'll give it to him. I would much rather lose my credit cards, cash, license and wallet than have to engage in an armed confrontation. But what if he intends to harm you, regardless? I intend to defend myself in that situation.


I don't intend that last bit as giving guns a total pass, for the record. I think a gun is about as efficient a self-defense tool as a bazooka. You have a better chance of accomplishing the intended goal--injuring (but not crippling or killing) a person enough to make them stop threatening you without risking an Intent To Kill charge against you (it's pretty easy to sue someone for what amounts to the civilian version of excessive force if they shoot an intruder with a shotgun, vs. stab the intruder once or hit them with a bat once).

Most states have castle laws that basically state, if someone gains unauthorized entry to your home, their intention is to cause harm and you are permitted to take any reasonable means necessary to protect yourself.
If you shoot them in the face 16 times, you've got excessive force.
If you fire off a 12g birdshot or one to two handgun rounds in the effort of self defense, you will not be found guilty of any crime.

I'd much rather have knives, rocks, bows, crossbows, and brass knuckles being pointed at me than guns.. just sayin' :|

You know what? I would too. But too many people have guns AND the intent to abuse it.

Lol of course you're going to play the Damsel in distress situation up.. yeah well think of it this way, if someone is close enough for you to realize their intent is to rape you then you're not going to be getting to any weapons to defend yourself, and even if you do.. what makes you think you'll be able to cock that pistol and get a shot off before he punches you in the face and breaks your fingers when he pry's the gun from your hand? your only defense isn't a gun you can grab anything nearby and use that to defend yourself I'm not saying you should lay back and let yourself get sexually abused since you don't have a gun.. just find another way to defend yourself chances are anytime you'd be in a situation like that it wouldn't be in your own household and you most likely wouldn't have quick access to a firearm much less the ability to think clearly enough in that moment to use it before your assaulter could prevent you from using it lawl, I guess what I'm trying to say is get a rape whistle and lock your doors if that's what you're afraid of..


Damsel in Distress situation? You're such an ignorant cunt.
Regarding "cock that pistol" - if you own a firearm for self defense, you keep a round in the chamber. There is no cocking involved.
A self defense weapon that is not immediately ready to discharge is like carrying a condom with holes in it.
"You most likely wouldn't have quick access to a firearm" -- once again, self defense firearm owners carry them on their person when permitted, concealed or not.

I am for the right to own and bare arms... but for security of course ;)

who the hell needs a fully automatic 50 caliber for protection!?!?!? that is just too much... but a semi auto 9mm or 45mm that is cool with me.


I know a sir who owns a few full auto .50, belt fed machine guns, .50 bolt action rifles, full auto assault rifles, whatever you can imagine.

The answer for why? Is because they're fucking fun.

#129 Yung

Yung
  • Codexian

  • 3361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:45 AM

Regarding "cock that pistol" - if you own a firearm for self defense, you keep a round in the chamber. There is no cocking involved.
A self defense weapon that is not immediately ready to discharge is like carrying a condom with holes in it.


While though I support the proper use of a gun I do not support you, this is blatantly unsafe firearm practice. If you actually know how to handle your weapon then this should be a non-issue. You're liable to have the gun go off accidentally by keeping one in the chamber. THAT is reckless behavior and the reason many people are against firearm ownership on a private level.


I know a sir who owns a few full auto .50, belt fed machine guns, .50 bolt action rifles, full auto assault rifles, whatever you can imagine.

The answer for why? Is because they're fucking fun.


That's illegal in the United States without a class 3 license, the price of which to maintain is ludicrous.

#130 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 07:48 AM

Other than the argument

"I may get raped in the middle of the night so I need an M16" or "There was once a snake in my boot so I need an RPG"

What logical reasoning do Americans have behind carrying guns? If you're prepared to get into a firearms fight over monetary items, you don't deserve the right to carry one. Money and items can be replaced, people cannot.

For the argument that people who come into your house in the middle of the night, I still don't see an excuse for carrying firearms. You say intent is "to cause you harm" and I say bollocks.

1. You cannot prove intent to cause harm in most cases. It's a standard, pre-defined legal definition and you're playing on your own fears and insecurities. Trust me, I work in law enforcement and I know UK standards differ to US but intent is most cases is hard to prove.

2. People who break into your house late at night are almost always burglars. They are cowards and scared. They do not want confrontation so that's why the break in when you're sleeping. They don't want to cause harm unless it's a "scared rat*" attack. They are trespassing to steal your items. NOT harm you. If you believe shooting someone point blank is reasonable and proportionate for stealing your TV, again, you do not deserve to carry one.

It is not a right to carry a firearm. Just because it was written 300 years ago you may carry a gun because the King of England may attack does not mean your ill-educated, ignorant rednecks can carry firearms.

How many of you have had actual training to use firearms?

"Candidates are required to gain approval from their superiors before embarking on a series of interviews, psychological and physical fitness tests, medical and assessment days before permission to commence firearms training is approved. There is no guarantee of success, candidates can be returned to their previous role at any point in training if they do not meet the criteria."

"Once authorised, officers must go through regular refresher courses and retests in all aspects of their training in order to keep their firearms 'ticket', such as being tested every four months, and requalifying for the role each year. Failing in any aspect can result in the officer having their ticket revoked, and any health issues which arise can also result in suspension from firearms duties, temporarily or otherwise"

"In all forces, usage of other weapons such as semi-automatic carbines requires further training and authorisation. Semi-automatic carbines are stored in a locked armoury which is situated in the boot of an Armed Response Vehicle. Equipping of semi-automatic carbines rests on a judgment of the AFO.["

"United Kingdom law allows the use of "reasonable force" in order to make an arrest or prevent a crime[8][9] or to defend one's self.[10] However, if the force used is fatal, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".[11]Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life" ."

Put it simply, if you cannot go through the same procedures and training as firearms officers what makes you feel that you can carry one without consequence? Although the incidents faced may be different, the standards, fitness and training should be the same.

Shooting once a week at a non-moving target is not training.

#131 onlyme

onlyme
  • I hate everyone.

  • 4319 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 07:55 AM

Posted Image



#132 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 08:07 AM

It is not a right to carry a firearm. Just because it was written 300 years ago you may carry a gun because the King of England may attack does not mean your ill-educated, ignorant rednecks can carry firearms.


What about well-educated, informed non-rednecks? Are you against gun ownership as a whole or just carrying?

#133 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 10:22 AM

I wonder if your head would explode if you found out that I am from Tennessee and I own more than one gun ~~♥

I completely agree with cuddlydemon. I don't really care who has guns if it doesn't affect me. I like hunting, I like shooting, but I don't think that possessing a gun means that I am better capable to defend myself if someone pins me to my bed to rape me. That gun in my closet is not gonna help me in that situation.

^The crux of the argument. I'm a martial artist, and in my experience, no weapon is as useful as training in self defense. Guns don't protect people - people protect people by knowing what to do when threatened. The tool doesn't matter as much as the mind using it. The problem comes in when the tool (like a firearm) is easy to use (point and shoot) glorified in popular media, and overwhelmingly pervasive throughout our society.

You get robbed, you let it happen. If you believe getting into a gun fight is worth it for possessions, that let's be frank, aren't going to be worth more than a couple of K you'll probably not smart enough to own a gun anyway.

You're more likely to be raped by your husband or boyfriend. Don't use needless emotional drama justify giving lethal weapons to idiots.

Of course you're right. But the vast majority of people won't recognize that their posessions aren't worth fighting over. The vast majority of people would rather live in fear of the other, and feel safer having a deadly weapon at hand, than to recognize that by and large the world is not out to get them.

Guns and gun ownership are in my experience a byproduct of fear. 300 years ago we were afraid of the British coming back, 150 years ago we were afraid of slave revolts, and forty years ago, we were afraid of black unemployed in New York.

It's always something. Nowadays it's terrorists. It's just fear and consumption.

This is the only time that I think I would ever agree with Marylin Manson. The topic he's discussing is the shootings at Columbine High School

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEOZF9MNS0

"It's a campaign of fear and consumption. And that's what it's all based on. Keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume."

#134 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 10:55 AM

Particularly with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.


You're thinking of my liver.

I love that Codex seems to attract people who are educated in everything. Makes for a compelling read.


:rofl:

#135 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 01:51 PM

I don't have a problem with people owning hunting rifles, or a handgun in their homes for self defense. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers would have thought that it's a good idea for anyone to own an automatic shotgun, or a weapon capable of firing 3600 rpm.


They very much would have. The right to own arms was not created simply for the purpose of hunting. It was created for the purpose of self defense. The ideology when the founding fathers created this bill of right is that at all time citizens could find them facing attack from an army and they would need the right to defend themselves. There was no limit placed upon the power of the weapons at that time, because they needed the best that they could to prevent an army from overtaking them.

Thus, if automatic weapons existed when they created it, it would have been okay as well. In today's age were billions are spent on defense so no army could harm us, this bill seems excessive.

Other than the argument

"I may get raped in the middle of the night so I need an M16" or "There was once a snake in my boot so I need an RPG"

What logical reasoning do Americans have behind carrying guns? If you're prepared to get into a firearms fight over monetary items, you don't deserve the right to carry one. Money and items can be replaced, people cannot.


4.2 births a second says that people can be replaced pretty easily :( (Just not in someones heart)

But on another note. Gangbangers/thuds/drug dealers all have access to automatic weaponry, and as such it seems fair that the people they might target should also have access to the same weaponry to try and make things more even. That's the defense behind all gun laws.

For the argument that people who come into your house in the middle of the night, I still don't see an excuse for carrying firearms. You say intent is "to cause you harm" and I say bollocks.

1. You cannot prove intent to cause harm in most cases. It's a standard, pre-defined legal definition and you're playing on your own fears and insecurities. Trust me, I work in law enforcement and I know UK standards differ to US but intent is most cases is hard to prove.

2. People who break into your house late at night are almost always burglars. They are cowards and scared. They do not want confrontation so that's why the break in when you're sleeping. They don't want to cause harm unless it's a "scared rat*" attack. They are trespassing to steal your items. NOT harm you. If you believe shooting someone point blank is reasonable and proportionate for stealing your TV, again, you do not deserve to carry one.


How many people do you think would continue to break into houses at night if it meant you would get shot? If you knew that by stealing from someone you were risking death, how many people would continue to do it?

It is not a right to carry a firearm. Just because it was written 300 years ago you may carry a gun because the King of England may attack does not mean your ill-educated, ignorant rednecks can carry firearms.

How many of you have had actual training to use firearms?


The bill only says you have the right, not how you get that right. Clearly laws should be made that forced you into specific training and education before you use a firearm. Of course, that could also just teach someone how to go and shoot up a school...


Put it simply, if you cannot go through the same procedures and training as firearms officers what makes you feel that you can carry one without consequence? Although the incidents faced may be different, the standards, fitness and training should be the same.


An officer has explicit training for two reasons. To be able to counter someone who does not have this training, and to be able to shoot someone without being prosecuted for murder.

It is because of this training, and the badge that they wear that they are not immediately arrested for murder when they shoot someone. You do not have this protection when you carry a firearm. You carry that firearm knowing that when you pull the trigger, there is a chance for jail time regardless of the situation (In most states. In Florida for example., stand your ground allows you to kill as long as you were threatened... :()


I'm actually not for automatic weapons at all. I'm against all weapons, but at the same time, I can recognize why others will need it. If I ever find myself at gun point, I will want a gun as well. If I ever find myself at knife point from someone stronger then me, I will also wish I had a gun. No matter what you want to believe, there is always a situation were people need weapons to defend themselves. When that situation is eliminated, we can eliminate guns.

#136 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 03:54 PM

That's illegal in the United States without a class 3 license, the price of which to maintain is ludicrous.


Surely you know that something being illegal doesn't stop people from having it.


They very much would have. The right to own arms was not created simply for the purpose of hunting. It was created for the purpose of self defense. The ideology when the founding fathers created this bill of right is that at all times citizens could find them facing attack from an army and they would need the right to defend themselves. There was no limit placed upon the power of the weapons at that time, because they needed the best that they could to prevent an army from overtaking them.


I think that people still need the personal power to prevent an army from over-taking them. Just because there is no immediate danger of this happening, I still think it is a legit fear. I mean, really. Among the first things the government is going to do when they decide to take over is take the guns from people known to have weapons.

4.2 births a second says that people can be replaced pretty easily :( (Just not in someones heart) But on another note. Gangbangers/thuds/drug dealers all have access to automatic weaponry, and as such it seems fair that the people they might target should also have access to the same weaponry to try and make things more even. That's the defense behind all gun laws.

Have you ever read the book Freakonomics? The authors of it believe crime can be reduced by making abortions easily available.

(In most states. In Florida for example., stand your ground allows you to kill as long as you were threatened... )

Why the frowny face? You'd rather die so someone else can live?

Money and items can be replaced, people cannot.

So why wouldn't you have some type of weapon to protect your family?

2. People who break into your house late at night are almost always burglars. They are cowards and scared. They do not want confrontation so that's why the break in when you're sleeping. They don't want to cause harm unless it's a "scared rat*" attack. They are trespassing to steal your items. NOT harm you. If you believe shooting someone point blank is reasonable and proportionate for stealing your TV, again, you do not deserve to carry one.

I would think that there would be a higher chance of them freaking out and getting violent if someone woke up in the middle of a burglary. Shooting someone in this scenario wouldn't be to protect the TV, it would be preventative action to escape harm to myself/family.

Put it simply, if you cannot go through the same procedures and training as firearms officers what makes you feel that you can carry one without consequence? Although the incidents faced may be different, the standards, fitness and training should be the same.

You don't have fat cops over there?? I don't think most people with guns believe they are carrying them without consequence. Even tweakers who use them for violence are still aware that they might hurt/kill somebody (since that is the point of guns) and could go to jail, even if they never fire it.

#137 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 May 2012 - 04:28 PM

Why the frowny face? You'd rather die so someone else can live?


The frowny face is because the Stand your ground law is a free ticket without need for justiciation. Under the law the person isn't even arrested or detained following the event.

A recentish case would be Trayvon Martin. Who was followed by someone, and then cornered, and when he tried to fight back, he was shot and killed. The police did not arrest his shooter because he had a broken nose. Only when the news got a hold of it and people protested, did anything happen. The law doesn't require you to prove that you were in danger, as long as you feel threatened, you can kill.

#138 travis

travis
  • 5408 posts


Users Awards

Posted 25 May 2012 - 02:24 PM

While though I support the proper use of a gun I do not support you, this is blatantly unsafe firearm practice. If you actually know how to handle your weapon then this should be a non-issue. You're liable to have the gun go off accidentally by keeping one in the chamber. THAT is reckless behavior and the reason many people are against firearm ownership on a private level.




That's illegal in the United States without a class 3 license, the price of which to maintain is ludicrous.


You have obviously never had much experience with a firearm. I have NEVER had an accidental discharge, and if you ask ANYONE who carries a firearm on their person for defense, a round is ALWAYS kept in the chamber. The time spend racking the slide may get you killed.

Note there is a difference between round in the chamber, and "cocked".
No round in chamber means you would have to rack the slide, which will engage a round in the chamber, and "cock" the hammer.
I carry with a round in the chamber and the hammer up - in resting position - and every modern semi-automatic is dual action. Hammer up, under a FIFTEEN POUND trigger pull, will COCK AND RELEASE the hammer, discharge a round, rack the slide, eject the shell, re-arm the hammer and chamber a new round. Every trigger pull after that is about two pound.

Carrying with the hammer armed IS dangerous, but you are misinformed in that round in chamber = hammer armed. It does not, nobody in their right mind carries with a cocked hammer, and you couldn't accidentally discharge a fifteen pound pull if you tried.

You are also misinformed about Class 3 licensing.

It is a common misconception[13] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms."

Son, if you don't have full knowledge of something, don't try to smash out other people.

#139 Morph

Morph
  • 55 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 11:49 PM

The way I see it, everyone should be allowed to own a gun once given the proper education and background checks to ensure that they can handle it in a responsible manner. If life runs the risk of someone illegally holding a gun to me or my loved ones, why shouldn't I be allowed to legally protect myself from that possibility through owning a gun myself?

#140 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 May 2012 - 10:02 AM

The way I see it, everyone should be allowed to own a gun once given the proper education and background checks to ensure that they can handle it in a responsible manner. If life runs the risk of someone illegally holding a gun to me or my loved ones, why shouldn't I be allowed to legally protect myself from that possibility through owning a gun myself?


There's also risks that someone illegally holding an explosive can kill hundreds of people. So you're saying we should start arming people with C4?

#141 Information

Information
  • 246 posts

Posted 26 May 2012 - 10:03 AM

You're comparing apples with oranges. People in the UK don't need guns because there are very few guns in circulation and they are very difficult to access even for criminals whereas America is saturated with guns (both legally and illegally) so there is more of a requirement for the general public to have guns of their own for protection.

Are you English?

#142 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 May 2012 - 10:04 AM

No he's from Newcastle. Savages.

#143 Information

Information
  • 246 posts

Posted 26 May 2012 - 01:45 PM

Oh right I see.
I'm sure people who originate from Newcastle are still English.

#144 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:00 AM

Posted Image

#145 Information

Information
  • 246 posts

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:09 AM

Wasn't the "Savages" part the joke?

#146 Yung

Yung
  • Codexian

  • 3361 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 May 2012 - 06:48 AM

That's the defense behind all gun laws.

Not the only reason but a large reason for gun law regulation is the illegal use of firearms that are used with the intent of causing harm to others.

How many people do you think would continue to break into houses at night if it meant you would get shot? If you knew that by stealing from someone you were risking death, how many people would continue to do it?

I for one believe that this would greatly reduce the amount of robberies occurring, I know first hand that is why none of us growing up broke into houses, as sneaky as we were none of us wanted to be shot for doing it and where we lived there was a high chance of that happening for doing that.

I think that people still need the personal power to prevent an army from over-taking them. Just because there is no immediate danger of this happening, I still think it is a legit fear. I mean, really. Among the first things the government is going to do when they decide to take over is take the guns from people known to have weapons.

So, having unregistered firearms are helpful for a realistic uprising in form of revolution against ones government. What form of defense do you feel firearms can provide against a well trained, well armed army that has access to much more advanced weaponry?

I would think that there would be a higher chance of them freaking out and getting violent if someone woke up in the middle of a burglary. Shooting someone in this scenario wouldn't be to protect the TV, it would be preventative action to escape harm to myself/family.

The first thought that crosses my mind when someone breaks into my house is that they are here specifically to harm me, as such I avoid confrontation by quickly trying to get them to leave. Using a firearm, one way or another, will get them to leave.


The frowny face is because the Stand your ground law is a free ticket without need for justiciation. Under the law the person isn't even arrested or detained following the event.

The law doesn't require you to prove that you were in danger, as long as you feel threatened, you can kill.


Florida follows the 10-20-Life laws; Pull a gun 10 years, fire a gun 20 years, shoot someone 25 years to life.

Those are on billboards and commercials all the time, since as long as I can remember we've had those.

You have obviously never had much experience with a firearm. I have NEVER had an accidental discharge, and if you ask ANYONE who carries a firearm on their person for defense, a round is ALWAYS kept in the chamber. The time spend racking the slide may get you killed.

Note there is a difference between round in the chamber, and "cocked".
No round in chamber means you would have to rack the slide, which will engage a round in the chamber, and "cock" the hammer.
I carry with a round in the chamber and the hammer up - in resting position - and every modern semi-automatic is dual action. Hammer up, under a FIFTEEN POUND trigger pull, will COCK AND RELEASE the hammer, discharge a round, rack the slide, eject the shell, re-arm the hammer and chamber a new round. Every trigger pull after that is about two pound.

Carrying with the hammer armed IS dangerous, but you are misinformed in that round in chamber = hammer armed. It does not, nobody in their right mind carries with a cocked hammer, and you couldn't accidentally discharge a fifteen pound pull if you tried.

Obviously the hammer being cocked is different when you put it into that context however you never specified that was the style gun you were using. I have already stated that I use a Glock 22 Gen 3 .40 cal, that means no traditional hammer, if I have a round in the chamber the only thing I have to do is rack the slide and it's ready to fire.

So before stating how misinformed I am perhaps you should get a better feel for the style of gun I prefer using as well as clearly stating your own, as you now have.

You are also misinformed about Class 3 licensing.

It is a common misconception[13] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms."

Son, if you don't have full knowledge of something, don't try to smash out other people.


Giving this quote from wikipedia is a start but I'm going to look into it further and find a hard link to solidify this portion of the discussion one way or the other.

#147 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 May 2012 - 06:29 AM

So, having unregistered firearms are helpful for a realistic uprising in form of revolution against ones government. What form of defense do you feel firearms can provide against a well trained, well armed army that has access to much more advanced weaponry?

Well, obviously the proportionately few people who believe in unregistered guns won't have much effect on the military now. If the majority of people had guns though and the majority of people had this point of view, then there would be a higher chance of being able to do something like that as a civilian in the event it would happen. Especially since the US is in an obscene amount of debt. There's going to come a point where the military training/weapons/advancement/technology/etc is going to be degraded either by the lack of funds or the need to sell these things to other countries to create funds. If the civilian world has already prepared itself for this type of scenario, then there would be a chance that they could succeed. But the whole guns-are-bad mentality will severely damage that possibility.


More realistic now:
If you're going to die anyway, wouldn't you like to at least take some people with you?

#148 evilmushrooms92

evilmushrooms92
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:49 AM

We're not allowed them in this country without a difficult to come by gun license. I know you have them in the US, and I can't help thinking having one for self protection can make the issue worse; if you whip out a gun on an armed robber he won't hesitate to shoot you out of fear for his own life. I'd rather wimp out and let them steal my stuff than get a bullet through my head...


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users