Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Does the phrase "Slippery Slope" mean anything, to you, Crni?
Gun control thread #4387
- Thread starter Loxley
- Start date
Vault Senior Citizen
ah yeah you mean the part about "no weapons = no freedom". Yes I know about it.
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Crni Vuk said:Why do I have to explain this ? Weapons are weapons no ?the_cpl said:
For what? Are you going to use it for self defense or for target shooting?
No. You can have fun with firearms, you can targetshoot them, you can teach your family members how to use them, you can teach them safety. You can hunt with it, and eat the deer, rabbit you shot.
Can you do that with your nuke?
Even when governments playing with nukes that's really retarded.Everything like what? Only you were talking about nukes, others were talking about pistols and rifles.
I spent 25+ years in Europe, and I spent several years in the U.S. The U.S. feels more safe with 120.000.000 legal firearms than Europe with the restricted gun rights and total gun-bans.
popej said:
You can kill with both. More people die by cars than getting shot. So yes, there is a difference.
I have the feeling you misunderstood me. Or my intentions.
I know we have quite harsh restrictions here and I am pretty happy about it. It is not impossible to get weapons for exactly the things you mentioned. Hunting and sport. Albeit hunting is not really a popular and very expensive sport - well crafted hunting weapons can go from like 5000 to 20 000 and more € but that just by the way.
Self defence might be for some a priority and I am not going to argue about that because it is obvious if someone is attacking you a gun might be handy. So one can NOT argue that guns can't help you here. How much the protection is they offer though is an entirely different question - like lets say someone breaks in your home while you sleep and you get shoot in your bed a gun under your pillow is quite useless if you dodon'tealize it. So for "defence" you need time to react which is not something you always have. But as said if someone is charging you with a knife while you have a gun. Sure a good defence. No arguing here. Otherwise the military would be still using swords and axes.
Anyway. When ever people mention guns = freedom then I simply question that as I think Germany offers quite much freedom without a population that is armed. Do we really need access to weapons like automatic guns ? Or even high powered rifles ? Collecting maybe or for "love" as the only reason ? I don't now it.
But others here also came up with the question of proportionality. Certain objects have some stigma and hold also a certain risk. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. For example people with a weapon might commit easier suicide, a family member could be easier hurted, the potential of accidents (reregardlessow "well" you teach your kidz they will always stay "kids" and even among adults accidents happen) not to mention the role of weapons in domestic violence. Those are all important questions and factors which should be considered. And people suddenly call it a "cut of their rights" just when you try to discuss those issues as unbiased as possible. Driving cars for example is something which sees many restrictions and regulations. Be it a speed limit, no alcohol or being mentaly and physicaly possible to drive it. All those are in place to make sure citizens can expect a certain level of regulation which give you as well protection. If people get caught while driving their car drunk they will get punished for example.
I think I have read about once something about the North hollywood shoot out that the criminals have been checked by the police in their car a few days before the crime with the weapons inside their car but those have been legal so nothing happened. In germany the weapons would have been at least confiscated. I have no clue if that is true though. But I am just saying. If you dont have any kind of regulations it makes the work of the police quite difficult. Imagine drugs or alcohol allowed while driving your car. I know the example of cars, drugs and weapons is not ideal. Point is though that a certain limitation and regulation should be there. We have that with almost everything to make sure that objects get only used for what they are intended for. Or at least used with care. This has not to be the case for you now but I am just saying it in general. Why should guns not face the same situation ? Because people want to defend them self from the government ? When was the last time people had to use their weapons in the central of europe or north america to "overthrow" their government in the last 60 years ?
I know we have quite harsh restrictions here and I am pretty happy about it. It is not impossible to get weapons for exactly the things you mentioned. Hunting and sport. Albeit hunting is not really a popular and very expensive sport - well crafted hunting weapons can go from like 5000 to 20 000 and more € but that just by the way.
Self defence might be for some a priority and I am not going to argue about that because it is obvious if someone is attacking you a gun might be handy. So one can NOT argue that guns can't help you here. How much the protection is they offer though is an entirely different question - like lets say someone breaks in your home while you sleep and you get shoot in your bed a gun under your pillow is quite useless if you dodon'tealize it. So for "defence" you need time to react which is not something you always have. But as said if someone is charging you with a knife while you have a gun. Sure a good defence. No arguing here. Otherwise the military would be still using swords and axes.
Anyway. When ever people mention guns = freedom then I simply question that as I think Germany offers quite much freedom without a population that is armed. Do we really need access to weapons like automatic guns ? Or even high powered rifles ? Collecting maybe or for "love" as the only reason ? I don't now it.
But others here also came up with the question of proportionality. Certain objects have some stigma and hold also a certain risk. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis. For example people with a weapon might commit easier suicide, a family member could be easier hurted, the potential of accidents (reregardlessow "well" you teach your kidz they will always stay "kids" and even among adults accidents happen) not to mention the role of weapons in domestic violence. Those are all important questions and factors which should be considered. And people suddenly call it a "cut of their rights" just when you try to discuss those issues as unbiased as possible. Driving cars for example is something which sees many restrictions and regulations. Be it a speed limit, no alcohol or being mentaly and physicaly possible to drive it. All those are in place to make sure citizens can expect a certain level of regulation which give you as well protection. If people get caught while driving their car drunk they will get punished for example.
I think I have read about once something about the North hollywood shoot out that the criminals have been checked by the police in their car a few days before the crime with the weapons inside their car but those have been legal so nothing happened. In germany the weapons would have been at least confiscated. I have no clue if that is true though. But I am just saying. If you dont have any kind of regulations it makes the work of the police quite difficult. Imagine drugs or alcohol allowed while driving your car. I know the example of cars, drugs and weapons is not ideal. Point is though that a certain limitation and regulation should be there. We have that with almost everything to make sure that objects get only used for what they are intended for. Or at least used with care. This has not to be the case for you now but I am just saying it in general. Why should guns not face the same situation ? Because people want to defend them self from the government ? When was the last time people had to use their weapons in the central of europe or north america to "overthrow" their government in the last 60 years ?
the_cpl said:...You can kill with both. More people die by cars than getting shot. So yes, there is a difference.
No shit!
You can't drive a gun to work though can you? You can't cut your steak with a gun either can you?
Gun's have very little utility for the general public beyond farming and possibly hunting where it's a necessity for food.
Cars and knives (of a certain type) on the other hand are almost essential...
In some countries knives are heavily controlled anyway.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
No, Crni, in that any logic that can be used to ban certain kinds of firearms or attachments or whatever (barrel length, suppressors, magazine capacity, caliber restrictions, etc) can easily be twisted to become far more strict.
I mean, no honest man needs more than five rounds in his magazine, right? And if you don't more than five, you really don't need four. And actually any honest man would probably just be hunting, so he only needs one shot, because he'd only get one shot off.
I mean, no honest man needs more than five rounds in his magazine, right? And if you don't more than five, you really don't need four. And actually any honest man would probably just be hunting, so he only needs one shot, because he'd only get one shot off.
I never said that you should not apply some kind of "common sense" in here.Wintermind said:
But that is exactly the point I am talking about.
Silencers - how useful are they ? Is it really needed in hunting ?
magazine capacity - Does it make that much of a difference ? 10, 30 or 100 drum magazines are sure fun on a gun range. But is it required for sport and hunting ?
Caliber restrictions - that one is complicated. Because in hunting many different sizes are quite important and in sport shooting as well. Though I don't see the use of a 50 cal round for either as example.
I personally don't have a problem with the things you named. But I don't have any issue with it if they are banned for example. As said. Are those "gadgets" really required ?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY[/youtube]
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Crni Vuk said:
The 10 coutries with the highest suicide rates are countries with gun-bans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians... 235,000,000
Fatal firearms accidents per year... 1,100
These rates are much better than car-accident rates.
Law abicing citizens don't do that. If they do, they loose their firearms. Criminals doing it anyway. I just heard the rioters in the U.K. are shooting at the police. If the guns are banned, how can they do that? Because they don't care about the law, and even if the guns are banned, they still have guns.
True. But there are laws for guns too. If you are drinking alcohol, you can't shoot, you can't even carry your firearm.
I don't see your point with this. If you drive your own car and the police knows about it, it's ok. If you steal a car few days later and you do crimes, the police arrest you. If you do legal things it's ok, if you do illegal things it's not ok.
We have a lot regulations already. Criminals can't buy guns, the FBI making sure, if you are not a criminal and you are not a mental patient. You must be old enough to buy a firearm, and there are several other rules too.
Drugs and alcohol is not allowed at the shooting range neither. You can't walk around drank with a gun. That is against the law.
Romanian revolution of 1989?
I don't like to mix politics and gun rights, so I don't talk about these things.
the_cpl said:
Of course law-abiding citizens never misuse guns. Because as soon as they do, they are criminals. And those would have done it anyway!
Do you seriously mean accessibility plays no significant part here?
the_cpl said:
You have faith in the FBI.
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
popej said:the_cpl said:...You can kill with both. More people die by cars than getting shot. So yes, there is a difference.
No shit!
You can't drive a gun to work though can you? You can't cut your steak with a gun either can you?
You can't shoot a rapist with a car, can you? There is no knifethrowing at the olimpics, but there is targetshooting.
the_cpl
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Per said:
Do you have the same passion agianst drunk drivers? They are also criminals, but even if there are lots of drunk drivers you don't want to ban cars, right?
We are talking about civilians and gun ownership. They are taking it seriously.
the_cpl said:
Maybe? I think we shouldn't overstate the importance of my passion, though.
the_cpl said:
No, the alcohol is clearly the culprit there.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Crni Vuk said:
Firstly, they're called suppressors. And yes. They can cut a gunshot down from around a 140 decibels to 120 decibels. And that's a lot. Reduces noise pollution. Won't spook animals hunting, and make shooting ranges quieter.
Different sports require and can use different capacity magazines. They also have plenty of use in a self defense situation and again, slippery slope. If you don't really need a fifteen round magazine, do you really need a ten round magazine?
The mythical 'fifty cal' is still acceptable. Hunting big game at the least, and even smaller rounds, like a .338LM will fuck the shit out of stuff, like .408 cheytac or Barret's .416. Bullets will ruin a motherfuckers day. Doesn't really matter how big it is. .50BMG is also a popular round (alongside .338lm, .408, .416, etc) for long range target shooting.
And yeah, i'd say they're required.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Crni Vuk said:
http://www.silencerco.com/?section=Education&page=Benefits
I could paraphrase, but honestly why say it again if someone else has already said it better? While all of those might be true, the protection of your hearing is the main reason that people I know in person use them for.
I never said that it would be impossible to convince me about the usefulness of some gadgets. If it helps in shooting. Why not ?
hence why I said who ever is going to decide over those things should have some "common sense" and be a bit "open minded" about the topic.
It would be just as wrong to have someone to decide about the laws and regulations who is lead by the feelings guns do only kill children and get in the hands of drug dealers like how it would be wrong to listen to "gun fanatics".
Not that I mind people which "love" their guns. But don't they say love makes blind ?
hence why I said who ever is going to decide over those things should have some "common sense" and be a bit "open minded" about the topic.
It would be just as wrong to have someone to decide about the laws and regulations who is lead by the feelings guns do only kill children and get in the hands of drug dealers like how it would be wrong to listen to "gun fanatics".
Not that I mind people which "love" their guns. But don't they say love makes blind ?
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Some of the legally armed police officers are much more irresponsible than any civil gun owner, at least here in Slovakia.
http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/vi...cer_left_his_automatic_rifle_on_car_roof.html
http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/vi...cer_left_his_automatic_rifle_on_car_roof.html
WillisPDunlevey
Mildly Dipped
I only have my guns on the off chance that I may need to kill someone.
I dont like hunting (I would rather shoot someone who chooses to be an A$$hole than an animal that really doesnt choose things one way or another)
I dont like hunting (I would rather shoot someone who chooses to be an A$$hole than an animal that really doesnt choose things one way or another)
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Slovkia? Shit happens in america like crazy. Cops shot dead a man, on the ground, who was handcuffed. Because he told them he needed a warrant. Fuck da police, 187/365.