Gun control

Users who are viewing this thread

Seff

Cool Hand Luke
Duke
Continuation of the off-topic debate in the VT shooting thread.

Shootings in the us are going wild lately. Will getting rid of the guns help? Or only reduce people to sticks and stones?
 
Archonsod said:
Interestingly, antique firearms are actually harder to own in a functional state over here. In order to own the gunpowder needed to fire them, you need a demolitions licence.
That's funny. You don't need any sort of license to handle black powder weapons in Norway, as they are not practicable as "lethal weapons".
 
Everyone I know who keeps a gun 'concieled' in the car has it in the glove box.

It can't be reached if someone already has a gun pointed at you, but you can easily prepare it if you feel like you are nearing a dangerous place/time.
 
Hack McSlash said:
Everyone I know who keeps a gun 'concieled' in the car has it in the glove box.

It can't be reached if someone already has a gun pointed at you, but you can easily prepare it if you feel like you are nearing a dangerous place/time.

Actually, you can buy little holster strap things that hold it under the drivers seat.  It is a small gun, and I'm unsure if that makes a difference or not ... but that is where we carry ours.

Narcissus
 
Actually, you can buy little holster strap things that hold it under the drivers seat.  It is a small gun, and I'm unsure if that makes a difference or not ... but that is where we carry ours.
'thing is, what are you going to do with it? If someone holds up your car, are you going to whip it out and start shooting the criminal?

All that does is turn it into a gunfight. Instead of handing over the money and the hijackers running away, someone's going to get shot.
I don't see the point.  :neutral:
 
Someone unlock the school shootings thread. Just stipulate that anything people want to say about gun control should be written here and not in that thread.
 
Getting rid of guns would help to some degree (probably alot), it is very easy to kill someone with a gun (at close range at least). It would take some training and practice (or creative thinking at least) to kill people by other means as fast as a gun can. The big question is, how does one go about getting rid of guns? I do not think it is possible. As much as I do not like guns I do vote against any gun control. Maybe we could try reducing the restrictions and increase promotion of non-lethal weapons. I liked how in the computer game deus-ex many situations encouraged the use of non-lethal and sometimes quieter weapons.
 
Goodknight said:
It would take some training and practice (or creative thinking at least) to kill people by other means.

Not really. Stabbing someone, breaking their neck, hitting them with blunt objects, drowning, strangling, beating them to death, etc.
 
Ursca said:
Actually, you can buy little holster strap things that hold it under the drivers seat.  It is a small gun, and I'm unsure if that makes a difference or not ... but that is where we carry ours.
'thing is, what are you going to do with it? If someone holds up your car, are you going to whip it out and start shooting the criminal?

All that does is turn it into a gunfight. Instead of handing over the money and the hijackers running away, someone's going to get shot.
I don't see the point.  :neutral:

here in England, If any harm comes to the criminal while he is doing criminal things,its your fault.
E.G. a few years back 2 men broke into a farmer's house. He was elderly and scared so shot at the intruders, killing one. Amazingly the surviving intruder got away scott free (and 50,000 pounds richer) and the farmer got life in prison. All he was ding was defending his home. Basically, if someone tries torob you at gun point and you shoot him in self defence. You go to prison and the robber gets compensation.
 
Thats england. The point I was trying to make is sometimes, owning and using a gun (even in self defence) sees you ****ed by the law, so it is probably better not to own one o you don't feel the need to use it in situations requiring combat.
 
Guan_Chung said:
That is ****ing retarded.
Even if he was robbing your house, you're still trying to kill him. Burglary's one thing, murder's another.
But I agree that compensation is a bit much.

Bugman said:
here in England, If any harm comes to the criminal while he is doing criminal things,its your fault.
I'm English  :wink:
 
Goodknight said:
Getting rid of guns would help to some degree (probably alot)

No, no and NO. It's the same concept that locks keep honest people out. If you take away guns, all you will be doing is leaving the honest people defenseless. The criminals will still have guns, because TaaDaa! They are criminals! :roll: Any anti-gun laws will only keep guns away from the public and leave them without means to defend themselves from the bad guys that do have them. 

bugman said:
Thats england. The point I was trying to make is sometimes, owning and using a gun (even in self defence) sees you ****ed by the law, so it is probably better not to own one o you don't feel the need to use it in situations requiring combat.

But 90% of the time that is NOT true. You can read about hundreds of cases here in the US where the home owner shot the criminals and thus saved their lives/property. (And didn't get in trouble with the law :roll:)
 
Ursca said:
Guan_Chung said:
That is ****ing retarded.
Even if he was robbing your house, you're still trying to kill him. Burglary's one thing, murder's another.
But I agree that compensation is a bit much.

Bugman said:
here in England, If any harm comes to the criminal while he is doing criminal things,its your fault.
I'm English  :wink:

He didn't mean to kill the guy. He shot, put a shotgun shell in his lower back by accident and the guy bleed out instead of going to the hospital. no Llew. here you shoot a criminal, you get done and forced to compencate the wrongdoer.
 
Llew2 said:
It's the same concept that locks keep honest people out.
So, we should take the locks off our doors? Because, by your reasoning, we don't need them.

Llew2 said:
If you take away guns, all you will be doing is leaving the honest people defenseless.
Yeah! Honest people should have the option to shoot people. Because that's going to save lives isn't it.  :roll:

Bugman said:
He didn't mean to kill the guy. He shot, put a shotgun shell in his lower back by accident and the guy bleed out instead of going to the hospital. no Llew. here you shoot a criminal, you get done and forced to compencate the wrongdoer.
Well it would depend on the circumstances. If the farmer was warding the thief off, then that's self defence. If he took the burglar by surprise and shot him deliberately, then that's attempted murder.
 
If someone was breaking into your house and you had a gun that you were, by law, allowed to use in protection wouldn't you use it? Being put in jail for that is like taking our constitution and pissing all over it.
 
bugman said:
He didn't mean to kill the guy. He shot, put a shotgun shell in his lower back by accident and the guy bleed out instead of going to the hospital. no Llew. here you shoot a criminal, you get done and forced to compencate the wrongdoer.

Sorry to hear that.

So, we should take the locks off our doors? Because, by your reasoning, we don't need them.

Duh. :roll:

Yeah! Honest people should have the option to shoot people. Because that's going to save lives isn't it.  Rolling Eyes

Yes they bloody should.  It will save the lives of the honest people. As for the criminals, they should be delft with. And if they are stupid enough to try to rob/anything like that, they deserve all they get.

Well it would depend on the circumstances. If the farmer was warding the thief off, then that's self defence. If he took the burglar by surprise and shot him deliberately, then that's attempted murder.

Thats retarded.
 
Back
Top Bottom