Are You For Or Against Guns?

[AlwaysFSX]

you think our govt is going to turn against its own people? Jeez; Is that what this is about now? btw, the best gun you can possibly buy wont do anything against a government drone. The govt is not coming after you, put down the pitchforks. I mean shotguns.

I see you fail to realize the circle of power. First people gain power. Fear loosing it, so the try to suppress people. People realize, had enough, shoot the oppressor. It happens in every government.

[cae]

That is true. Which is why I was trying to make the point that our only realistic option is to update the law. It's preposterous to consider human beings owning armed drones or stealth planes, or that we should just give up developing new technology for military use.

 

Update the law to what? We've already got laws that forbid owning certain ordnance, which is what drones or stealth planes would be carrying anyhow.

[Guest]

I'll just say this, in Switzerland almost every house has a government issued assault rifle, yet they don't go batshit crazy every other weekend. So what are we doing wrong that this is always an issue? 

I just might have to move to Switzerland.

[Blade of Grass]

Every one has the right to live. When you choose to attack, rob, or mug me or anyone I know and love you lose that right.

Judge, jury and executioner, nice!

 

Perhaps your familiar with that little spat we call the revolutionary war. Not to mention the Scottish revolution, French revolution...

Yes, at the time when all we had were swords and muskets, not when the military possessed AH64 Apache helicopters and laser guided missiles.

 

I see you fail to realize the circle of power. First people gain power. Fear loosing it, so the try to suppress people. People realize, had enough, shoot the oppressor. It happens in every government.

So, what are you going to do about it? Are you suggesting that the American people should essentially run a parallel military force to protect yourselves? Who's going to pay for that? People complain enough about paying too much tax, so I doubt you'll get a substantial amount of people backing you.

And honestly, I doubt your .223 rifles are going to do anything vs. an Apache or M1 Abram. Then again, I'm not considering the fact that you're facing highly trained military troops, who are looked to as world class.

 

Honestly, do people actually think that you can protect yourself from the government with guns?

[Blade of Grass]

 

 

 

A TASER is not really something to use against lethal force. If someone pulls a gun on you, a TASER's not gonna stop them. If someone pulls a knife on you, a TASER might not even stop them.

 

http://youtu.be/yXIRHVrMPho?t=28m9s

 

http://youtu.be/YqVj17XCbOU?t=1m30s

 

You sure?

[cae]

The Hipoint C9 is only $190 and is pretty decent as far as I can tell.

 

I see them in shops for under $100 all the time. Not something I'd want to carry on me at any time, but for a cheap handgun they certainly work.

[Art Vandelay]

http://youtu.be/YqVj17XCbOU?t=1m30s

 

You sure?

That was a marine with no adrenaline or crystal meth in his system. Not sure I really want to try to use one of those on a crazy guy with a knife, and I really wouldn't want to use one of those on two crazy guys with knives.

 

I see them in shops for under $100 all the time. Not something I'd want to carry on me at any time, but for a cheap handgun they certainly work.

They're pretty bulky looking, but 3x cheaper than a TASER and a hell of a lot more effective.

[Guest]

Judge, jury and executioner, nice!

Damn straight.

You send one of mine to the hospital I send one of your's to the morgue.

(For those of you who haven't seen the movie this is from the untouchables)

[Guest]

http://youtu.be/YqVj17XCbOU?t=1m30s

 

You sure?

Yes most criminals I see are standing still with two marines holding them and not hypes up on adrenaline.

[cae]

So, what are you going to do about it? Are you suggesting that the American people should essentially run a parallel military force to protect yourselves? Who's going to pay for that? People complain enough about paying too much tax, so I doubt you'll get a substantial amount of people backing you.

And honestly, I doubt your .223 rifles are going to do anything vs. an Apache or M1 Abram. Then again, I'm not considering the fact that you're facing highly trained military troops, who are looked to as world class.

 

Honestly, do people actually think that you can protect yourself from the government with guns?

 

That is one of the basic reasons why we have the 2nd amendment - it'd be too costly to maintain a second army. Through taxes, we already pay too much for the one we have. You also must consider the fact that many of the men with boots on the ground or piloting these vehicles would rather take the side of the constitution. They took an oath to protect it and all. There are quite a few that are conditioned to think that droning little brown kids in Afghanistan is protecting our freedoms, so I realize not everyone is keen on that oath. Maybe I'm just foolishly optimistic, but I think you might overestimate the government's ability to turn the military on its own people.

[Blade of Grass]

That was a marine with no adrenaline or crystal meth in his system. Not sure I really want to try to use one of those on a crazy guy with a knife, and I really wouldn't want to use one of those on two crazy guys with knives.

Im not sure how much you know about biology, but the electricity in those tasers cause your muscles to contract, and as you can see, it's quite painful. Not only is it painful, but because of the shear amount of electricity, any other signal you send from your brain is drowned out.

Of course, this is a simplification of the process, but abit of Google searching can reveal more about how it effects your body biologically.

[Blade of Grass]

That is one of the basic reasons why we have the 2nd amendment - it'd be too costly to maintain a second army. Through taxes, we already pay too much for the one we have. You also must consider the fact that many of the men with boots on the ground or piloting these vehicles would rather take the side of the constitution. They took an oath to protect it and all. There are quite a few that are conditioned to think that droning little brown kids in Afghanistan is protecting our freedoms, so I realize not everyone is keen on that oath. Maybe I'm just foolishly optimistic, but I think you might overestimate the government's ability to turn the military on its own people.

Honestly, it would be great if they couldn't, but, sadly, as history had shown, it is possible (WWII, North Korea etc).

[Guest]

Im not sure how much you know about biology, but the electricity in those tasers cause your muscles to contract, and as you can see, it's quite painful. Not only is it painful, but because of the shear amount of electricity, any other signal you send from your brain is drowned out.

Of course, this is a simplification of the process, but abit of Google searching can reveal more about how it effects your body biologically.

Okay, first shot hits a guy and bring him down. However, there are two others but oh no your taser only has one shot and they have nothing to fear because even if you do have another he won't die if he gets hit.

[wpirobotbuilder]

Update the law to what? We've already got laws that forbid owning certain ordnance, which is what drones or stealth planes would be carrying anyhow.

We have lots of laws regarding gun ownership and regulations which people can't agree on. Preferably a single, comprehensive law that states in clear terms precisely what citizens are and aren't allowed to own in terms of ammunition capacity, firepower and other criteria.

 

I have no idea what that law should contain, because it would have to be amenable to many people.

[nicehat]

Perhaps your familiar with that little spat we call the revolutionary war. Not to mention the Scottish revolution, French revolution...

 

And the Whiskey Rebellion that was crushed by George Washington and his federal army? The people are not always the victims here. I think we need to understand that. 

[JustTooDank]

Judge, jury and executioner, nice!

 

Yes, at the time when all we had were swords and muskets, not when the military possessed AH64 Apache helicopters and laser guided missiles.

 

So, what are you going to do about it? Are you suggesting that the American people should essentially run a parallel military force to protect yourselves? Who's going to pay for that? People complain enough about paying too much tax, so I doubt you'll get a substantial amount of people backing you.

And honestly, I doubt your .223 rifles are going to do anything vs. an Apache or M1 Abram. Then again, I'm not considering the fact that you're facing highly trained military troops, who are looked to as world class.

 

Honestly, do people actually think that you can protect yourself from the government with guns?

Poverty stricken people in the middle of the desert have put up a fight for over a decade...And the US has no qualms with blowing their buildings up...They would be a lot more careful on US soil. It would be guerrilla warfare.

[Blade of Grass]

Poverty stricken people in the middle of the desert have put up a fight for over a decade...And the US has no qualms with blowing their buildings up...They would be a lot more careful on US soil. It would be guerrilla warfare.

Yes, but they have access to huge networks of security cameras + all telecommunications in the US. And they don't need to ships stuff around for new supplies. And they have no neighboring countries that you can hide in/get weapons from.

EDIT: Speaking of poverty, since the majority of Americans aren't, and have a decently high standard of living, I doubt many would enjoy going without hot food/electrcity/water/entertainment for more than a few monthly, probably less than a few weeks for most.

[cae]

Honestly, it would be great if they couldn't, but, sadly, as history had shown, it is possible (WWII, North Korea etc).

 

Possible for sure. It's good to know there are folks out there like this though:

 

[Art Vandelay]

Im not sure how much you know about biology, but the electricity in those tasers cause your muscles to contract, and as you can see, it's quite painful. Not only is it painful, but because of the shear amount of electricity, any other signal you send from your brain is drowned out.

Of course, this is a simplification of the process, but abit of Google searching can reveal more about how it effects your body biologically.

I kinda did have a video of someone resisting the effect of a taser and ripping the barbs out of himself... I'm told it's possible to resist, and this is the exact reason the police shoot people with knives instead of firing TASERs at them. Lethal force should be met with lethal force. Also, TASERs are only effective against one attacker, so if you have two people, GG.

[mr moose]

I haven't read the rest of the thread (too long) however here's my thoughts.

 

I don't think anyone should be allowed to impinge on the rights of others to own or do anything they want,  however if people wish to engage their rights to something (in this case firearms) then they should be held accountable for any ill that befalls another human as a result.

 

 

In other words you can have any gun you want, but you are responsible/accountable for that gun and any damage it does to another person.

[Ruostunut kokis]

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

Could be in some cases. In other cases not so much.

 

And certainly not useful when even tazers are forbidden...

 

Here pretty much every type of self-defense is either outlawed or useless.

[nicehat]

In other words you can have any gun you want, but you are responsible/accountable for that gun and any damage it does to another person.

 

Thats not much solace for the victim's family or the families of those affected by a gun related violence. I mean the Sandy hook massacre. The shooter killed everyone who might have shared the blame (mother, himself) along with 26 innocent lives. Is this justice? 

[mr moose]

Thats not much solace for the victim's family or the families of those affected by a gun related violence. I mean the Sandy hook massacre. The shooter killed everyone who might have shared the blame (mother, himself) along with 26 innocent lives. Is this justice? 

 

define justice. 

 

The problem I see with issues like this is where we draw the line between protecting people and controlling people.  I'll say from the onset that I don't have the answer, nor do I proclaim to, however somewhere along the debate the question of personal freedoms/civil rights has to be addressed.  A line between an all controlling state and a lawless mess.  

[cae]

Thats not much solace for the victim's family or the families of those affected by a gun related violence. I mean the Sandy hook massacre. The shooter killed everyone who might have shared the blame (mother, himself) along with 26 innocent lives. Is this justice? 

 

 

Sandy Hook is what thankfully or sadly woke me up.

[Almercenary]

It isn't a law, it's a guarantee of rights. The right to not only defend your property, but defend against the stripping of other rights - this where the abolition of tyranny comes in. Outdated it is not, we need it now more than ever.

Why are you so defensive of your rights. If a politician tries to change the 'law' or as you like to call it 'right' then they'll get a bullet in the brain. They'd have to go to a dictatorship to take it away, so I'd be more scared about basic human TBH, but everyone fights for what they thing is best I guess. I don't live there so fight away.  To back up my statement, the way I would ammend it is have people who buy guns go through a course on how to shoot one and, just like a car, have to do a certain amount of practice. That way you don't have a load of gun owners, who even in the case of property defense, can't hit shit past 5m.  Also, if your going to have guns, you need them everywhere, having places white listed to not go is just bullshit imo

So because it's outdated means it's meaningless?

 

FYI, if you haven't been paying attention, you still do need (I think anyways, based on all the crap that's been happening) a firearm for self defense and home defense. I bet you'll wish you had one if someone broke into your house armed with a weapon.

 

Please don't argue the whole "I don't need a gun to take down someone." Life isn't a movie or a video game. Criminals won't stop in place for a cinematic feel just to let you throw them against the wall to magically disarm their hand of the weapon they're holding.

 

And for God's sake, don't argue "just call 911". Lol.

Never said that, read second half of what I said above.

Facts about guns:

1. They need ammo and a person with guts behind them

2. To be properly used, they need a trained human holding them

 

With this in mind, no I wouldn't feel anymore safe with a fire arm, at close range I can't aim for shit. I doubt a lot of people can in the US either. I'm guessing not everyone has to serve a stint in the army or go through any training, so the only people who would genuinely have the knowledge of guns are, Farmers, people who like guns (ie, hunters, clay shooting ect) and ex-military people. I doubt 50% of the population fall under  one of those category. So, you have a thug who can't shoot for shit, and a home owner who can't. Not much help really whether or not you have a gun.