How do we tech enthusiasts feel about guns?

[Lays]

right, but guns make it too easy for lone nut jobs to kill dozens of people. The point isn't that guns are the problem, it's that that kind of tool should not be placed in the hands of people who are going to use it to kill people. You're always going to find a way to kill someone but by limiting the tool you increase the chance that you're attempt fails. Any moron can kill someone with a gun, most other methods require a lot more skill and provide a greater chance for self defense.

 

Well, obviously 23 people got stabbed before "self defence" came into the picture.  Regardless if they lived or not, he had a chance to stab TWENTY THREE PEOPLE.

[GrmanRodriguez]

I'm 100% against gun use. There are other alternatives to giving everyone a murdering machine

[ericlee30]

That stance is matter of personal opinion.

 

Really? how is it personal opinion? It is the truth isn't it? Or have you seen our Congress on the battlefield lately?

[ajoy39]

Well, obviously 23 people got stabbed before "self defence" came into the picture.  Regardless if they lived or not, he had a chance to stab TWENTY THREE PEOPLE.

but they lived...100% of them lived. If the man had been using guns it's very unlikely that even the majority of them would have survived, none-the-less every single one of them.

[Priller]

16" is the minimum civilian legal without extra paperwork for a SBR. For long range I'm looking to get a Remington 700 variant in .308 with 24" fluted barrel. 

 

In the states is 16 inches or a total length of less then 26. But you pay 200 dollars to own it. Remington 700 is a boss and it has been since the Vietnam war.

[Priller]

Really? how is it personal opinion? It is the truth isn't it? Or have you seen our Congress on the battlefield lately?

 

I'm talking about the view or "light" in which you put it. 

 

I have been on the "Battlefield" as you call it so my view is going to be different since I have been there.

[ajoy39]

Really? how is it personal opinion? It is the truth isn't it? Or have you seen our Congress on the battlefield lately?

the trend is decreasing, but it has been true in the past and still is to some extent today that congress is largely made up of former soldiers. 28 members of the senate, and 90 members of the house are former veterans. 32 of the 43 different presidents were veterans. I get your point in a sense, but many of these people have been to war at some point.

[Priller]

.223 ammo is still not the cheapest at $0.2+/round but Russian bulk 7N6 is nearly half that so getting an AK in 5.45 would be an economical choice.

 

Thoughts on 

 

SGL31

SSAK-47 XRS

Magpul RVG

Davis Tactical Solutions LINCH

Solar Tactical AK47 MFER

Primary Arms MD06

Midwest Industries US P.A.L.M. Handguard Topcover

Midwest Industries Universal Handguard

Echo 93 Single Point Sling

Krebs Custom Enhanced Safety

TAPCO G2 Single Hook Trigger

 

?

 

It's very nice setup. I like the more modern look for the AK 74 based rifles. 5.45 must be different for you because if I want any type of rifle ammo 5.56 or .223 is "Typically" easier to find then anything else.

[ericlee30]

the trend is decreasing, but it has been true in the past and still is to some extent today that congress is largely made up of former soldiers. 28 members of the senate, and 90 members of the house are former veterans. 32 of the 43 different presidents were veterans. I get your point in a sense, but many of these people have been to war at some point.

I do know that most of them are indeed war vets, but that was not my point.

 

It would be like this, I start something with you, then instead of me defending myself, in the manor i should,I call all my family members and friends to fight my battle for me.

[asquirrel]

Gun control...here's my 2¢

 

A gun is a gun is a gun. Magazine size, power, barrel length, spread pattern and size...these are all silly ways to regulate guns. If you want to regulate guns you regulate the people who can use guns. In order to own and hold a firearm legally, you must pass these tests. If you want to be a cop, you must pass these tests + these other tests. If you want to be SWAT, you must pass both sets + SWAT specific tests.

 

The field of people allowed to use weapons would get ever smaller. The tests would not allow you to own different types of guns, the tests would allow you to use your guns in a new set of contexts. At the basic level, you could own a gun for home defense; be that an RPG (inside a home an RPG-7 would struggle to arm itself, making it, basically, a 2lb bullet...this does NOT mean I think it's a viable home defense tool) or a 9mm handgun, that's fine. If you want to concealed carry, there will be more tests, centered around responding intelligently to stressful situations. You would be retested every 2-3 years. Anyone wound up too tight would have that privilege taken away; cop or citizen.

 

Cops would have the same stress tests for concealed carry (or perhaps a slightly modified set of tests which deal with open carry), to ensure they are not prone to excessive force and are capable of thinking under pressure. You would be able to be a cop without passing these tests, but you would not be allowed to carry a weapon. Special case override would be granted if you showed up on the scene of an active weaponized event, such as a school shooting or something of that sort, where being armed = being alive.

 

But what of the tests? If you shoot a civilian for any reason (over penetration, distraction, line of sight), you fail. You must be more interested in dying trying to make the correct shot than killing a perceived threat. If you use your weapon as a source of intimidation, you fail (this would be graded intelligently, if you put your hand on your gun as someone walks near you, that isn't a threat, that is preventing them from drawing your weapon).

 

Most important of all is a change in the culture of firearms. Life must be viewed as sacred instead of disposable. Injury must be treated as a lifelong debt to the person you injured. Only when these sorts of ideals are realized can you have meaningful gun control.

 

TL;DR: Gun control = gun education and mindset.

[Guest]

Poll options are overly limited and it's annoying that people see the world in black and white so I'll tackle the three options.

 

1- Ban all the guns: Banning the guns in places where they're readily available already serves absolutely no purpose. The first thing everyone should understand is that you can't take guns away from people, it is simply impossible both because of the law but also because no government is strong enough to survive the attempt to take away people's acquired right to their private property. It WOULD cause trouble and the government would fall and would never ever be elected again. It's not possible. People would hide their guns, people would resist, people would take it to the streets.

 

Trying to stop the sale of new guns does nothing because where there are already guns, new ones can be imported on the black market. The police won't know if you have a rifle in your house. Most of them are for sport and hunting, too. Regardless, criminals will ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET GUNS in countries where guns are already present. It is a lost cause. ANY LEGISLATION TO BUY GUNS WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS TRYING TO BAN COMPUTERS. People would say, well, nope.

 

2- Guns are a fundamental right: No. I don't think guns are considered a "fundamental right" anywhere. Even in the US it's a right but not a fundamental one. But even there in practice, the right to have a gun is very much a privilege and should be treated as such. Your privilege to have long-ranged lethal power in your hands means that you don't get to screw around. Some minimal precautions need to be taken.

 

3- I don't care: It's a fairly important social question, you should at least care a little bit.

 

 

Gun-related crime is indeed a problem, but the reason why banning guns is useless is because people who commit crimes with guns don't follow the law. Harsher sentences for ownership of illegal firearms can work. Measures to reduce inequality of weatlh and opportunities can help. Better mental health programs and services can help. One of the most disturbing things about how public resources are spent is just that; people perceive a problem and they get a gut reaction that tells them how to fix it. But the world is not that simple. When there's a problem, the first thing you do is you should try to figure out HOW to fix the problem, not just use the first potential solution you can think of.

 

Note: I don't own a gun and I don't want one, nor do I care about my right to purchase one.

[Dumbpants]

I do know that most of them are indeed war vets, but that was not my point.

 

It would be like this, I start something with you, then instead of me defending myself, in the manor i should,I call all my family members and friends to fight my battle for me.

The problem with your last statement, is that now the U.S. military is volunteer only, so anybody that is sent to "fight my battle for me" is doing so out of their own will. They chose to defend their country on the "battlefield."

 

[ericlee30]

The problem with your last statement, is that now the U.S. military is volunteer only, so anybody that is sent to "fight my battle for me" is doing so out of their own will. They chose to defend their country on the "battlefield."

 

The problem with your statement  is, are you Congress? Didn't think so, the American people and Congress and my statement about congress is far from what you pointed out.

[ajoy39]

The problem with your last statement, is that now the U.S. military is volunteer only, so anybody that is sent to "fight my battle for me" is doing so out of their own will. They chose to defend their country on the "battlefield."

 

it's volunteer only but they pretty heavily recruit kids in high school. You can't actually join until you're 18, but some of the stuff I hear come out of high school freshman's mouths when they talk about how excited they are to join is damn near brainwashing.

[Guest]

I am against guns, however, I'm not blind.

 

First of all, the second amendment that everyone pisses themselves over was made during a WAR in which everyone had a musket of some sort in case they were called out to battle, during a time when guns were two feet long, and took thirty seconds to reload. To keep those laws the same in a time where we have tiny, more powerful and precise guns that are fully automatic, it doesn't make sense. Why amend every law but the one that's potentially the most dangerous?

 

I don't get how people just keep them on themselves 24/7. It's not a phone! It's not a matter of pride; no one's going to call you a hero when they see you walking down the street with a pistol on your waist. People run, people feel anxious.

 

We love to point at the people who shoot up crowds of innocents as 'insane', but there's no way to predict that, and giving guns to EVERYONE, and letting them keep them in public places is what's insane. No one is insane until they go too far. And if everyone gets a gun, then everyone becomes hyper-sentitive, and because they have an immensely powerful weapon on them, what's they fight-or-flight instinct going to elicit? Are they going to talk it out with the offender? No! They're going to shoot first and call them crazy later, then get off scot-free.

 

Incidents like George Zimmerman's shooting are going to become commonplace; the extreme right are going to get a pass for killing people based on race, sexually orientational discrimination, and whatever else is 'offends their religion'. 

 

The point is, we can't keep gun laws the same way they've been since the 1700s. We can't let people carry them like a watch, and bring them into schools, churches, what have you. Georgia, which just passed the first full-on open carry law, is going to become one massive crime scene. 

 

No one's going to 'take your guns away', but we can restrict them. They're not pets, we're not discriminating; we're trying to keep SOME OF THE MORE DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN EXISTENCE from being brought into coffee shops and schools, without any restrictions.

 

*Political rant over*

[Tech_Dreamer]

[Stefan Becker]

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to be offensive here, but this is how I feel on the gun-topic. I have nothing against Americans whatsoever.

 

Whenever the Americans discuss, whether they should ban guns or not, and go for the latter option, they always forget to fucking look at Europe.

 

Americans won't take lessons from anyone.

[Hidden Orange]

I love guns and I love tech stuff so, how do I put this? I just like the process of things being made. I'm fascinated by how people can create something that can launch projectiles at incredible speeds, move and transport objects, store hundreds of thousands of files, purify minerals, or cut things so easily. I guess I like the craftsmanship of things and how they work. So, I do like firearms because of that. It's a fusion of blacksmithing, explosives, mathematics, aerodynamics, and all sorts of things into making a little object that can shoot a tiny object faster than the eye can blink.

 

 

The main issue is that pretty much everything people make tends to be focused on can it kill or not? Ceramics are often associated with pots, bowls, and other stuff we eat with. Well, you can use them for explosives. Bows and firearms can be used for recreational activities like trick shooting and speed shooting, but the main purpose is to kill other things. Same with metal working where blades are often used for killing with butchering, eating, harvesting, and other agricultural and food-use being an afterthought. Fire? Besides warmth and cooking, it's another way to instill fear and burn other beings to death. Microwaves and lasers were by-products or "failures" from death machines and laser weaponry. Rockets? Yeah, missiles. Flight? Yep, stealth bombers, fighter jets, and attack helicopters. Autos? Quicker ways to invade and the creation of tanks and mobile turrets. Robotics? Drones, exoskeletons for soldiers, and other unmanned weaponry. Satellites for surveillance over news for everyone.  

[WillFromGA]

It's impossible to eliminate stupid people from the gene pool, it's possible to control their access to things they can kill people with using their stupididty.

It's not possible to ban all guns. We have speeding laws and yet people still speed. Those stupid people will just make their own guns if they wanted to.

[xRAGExSounDxRIOTX]

my opinion, guns don't kill people, idiots kill people.  Getting rid of guns won't help anything, even if every gun in the world was destroyed, the crazy lunatics that kill people would still find a way to kill people.

If you're interested, you should read Glenn Beck's book on gun control.

http://www.amazon.com/Control-Exposing-Truth-About-Guns/dp/1476739870

 

From what I remember, he has the same opinion as you.

[GeorgeWasTaken]

Really dude ? Do you really wanna start this ? Really ?

 

 

Really dude ? Do you really wanna start this ? Really ?

 

Your input is greatly appreciated.

[coen113]

 

this^^ like, banning guns wont do shit but make it easier to be a criminal lol but seriously theres to many mentally ill people with guns

 

 

since when do criminals follow laws? .....

 

you mean the people with psychosis and stuff like that? not everybody that has a mental illness cant handle a gun

[Snickerzz]

you mean the people with psychosis and stuff like that? not everybody that has a mental illness cant handle a gun

im aware and i didnt mean it like that, i meant those who are impaired to the point of them having a gun is unsafe to themselfs and others

[cae]

2 months ago.

 

Your poll is garbage.

[Keudn]

I'm in between, banning all guns will NEVER work, one people will always be able to get ahold of them, and two Pro-gun enthusiasts are right, they do have the right to bear arms. However, there does need to be more regulations and background checks when someone goes to buy a gun. I live in good ol hickville Nebraska where just about everyone has a gun, and I've even been with my parents to go buy a gun a few times, and all you really have to do is walk in, give them your information, they do a "check", and you walk out with the gun. There need to be tougher regulations on who can get a gun and who can't to filter out at least a few of the mentally ill and ex-cons getting ahold of assault rifles.