J.Twendrist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 As soon as I legally can, I'm going to pack a gun. Why? Because everyone else (minus felons) can do the same, and I don't trust the majority of them with them. Not everyone who breaks laws have been caught, and that means there are plenty of crackheads out there who can get one, and I'd feel a lot safer having one of my own. On that note, I DO believe that people should have to have intensive training to own a gun, even the little baby .22, because even that can kill someone. A lot of the older people I know (and shoot with) are packing constantly, and I feel just as safe around them as if a cop were right next to me. Also, guns should only ever be used as a last resort. I would hand over my wallet, or appologize, or whatever over gunning someone down if it were an option. Nobody, however, should own a gun if they haven't been given a serious gun safety course, and prove that they know what they're carrying can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 No one needs armor piercing bullets to hunt deer. But those deer are shifty... can't be too sure. Real men hunt deer with grenades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekky Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I always had an issue with people saying they carry guns in the street for self-protection, and I'm not saying people don't have a right to. But the following example will illustrate what I mean. Hypothetical: You have a carry permit, and you live in a dangerous part of town. You carry a handgun with you when you go to the store because you worry about getting held up by another guy who's got a gun. Since you can't just carry a gun around in your hand, it's holstered under your jacket. Suddenly, a guy jumps out with a gun already drawn and points it at your head. He demands your money. You now have two choices: 1) Try to be Clint Eastwood and quickdraw the guy, hopefully getting your handgun out of its holster and shooting the mugger before he manages to shoot you with the gun he's already leveling at your melon. Good luck. 2) Give him your wallet, wait for him to start running away, and shoot him in the back. As far as the law is concerned, that's murder, or at least manslaughter. Because you can only use deadly force during the period of time where your life is actually threatened. That's why store owners can't chase robbers out onto the street and try to shoot them as they flee. It's also why private citizens can't. Your life is no longer in danger, and you could accidentally bag an innocent bystander. Sorry to sound like a lawyer, but I am ;p End Hypothetical. So ... without trying to say that no one has a right to bear arms or have carry permits, I'm just wondering how having a gun in this situation would help you? Seeing as both options are far from good. Feel free to rubbish me, it's just something I thought up while reading this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I choose secret option number 3 Nekky. He's holding you up, while if there was more gun carrying and along with it DEFINITELY more education, then he's pointing his gun at you and 5 people around the store are pointing their guns at him. Face it, no one wants to die. This dude's not going to trade life for life, and if he does, you never stood a chance anyway, because he was just out to take a life. Not rob a convenience store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 As soon as I legally can, I'm going to pack a gun. Why? Because everyone else (minus felons) can do the same, and I don't trust the majority of them with them. Not everyone who breaks laws have been caught, and that means there are plenty of crackheads out there who can get one, and I'd feel a lot safer having one of my own. On that note, I DO believe that people should have to have intensive training to own a gun, even the little baby .22, because even that can kill someone. A lot of the older people I know (and shoot with) are packing constantly, and I feel just as safe around them as if a cop were right next to me. Also, guns should only ever be used as a last resort. I would hand over my wallet, or appologize, or whatever over gunning someone down if it were an option. Nobody, however, should own a gun if they haven't been given a serious gun safety course, and prove that they know what they're carrying can do. YES! If that 16 year old, pain in the ***, spoiled rich girl has to pass a test before she's allowed to drive that new BMW she was given (which broke her heart, she totally wanted that neon yellow Lexus.), then I think someone should HAVE to pass a test to use a gun (regardless of it's size/use). Should there be exceptions? Yeah, just like with cars. Younger than 16 you can get a farmer license in NY for work on the farm. Man, I applaud you for being honest. When I read or hear someone say, "I'm a badass, I'd kill someone for waving a gun at me, or for even talking about it. I piss porcupines... backwards, and eat razor blade cereal with battery acid milk for breakfast. I carry a .50 desert eagle and can shoot a bee out of the air. I have bitches on me from miles around." I automatically think, "He cried during Bambi, and was breast fed until the age of nine. If he ever saw someone come at him with the intent of harm, he'd soil himself and cry bloody murder until he was." When I see someone say or write what you did, I think, "This guy is a true man and knows not only how to protect himself, but those around him.... and how to do it safely." a-g a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekky Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Re: Twinblades, I was thinking more of this situation going down in a deserted street. Not in the store itself. And as a little aside, I have no beef at all with people owning guns if they're into hunting or whatever. Just in case I came off like I did ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I agree with Nekky to some extent. While I agree that they aren't the best defense I do believe guns create a deterrent effect on would be criminals, but that's if they see it, and also might just help the confidence of the would be victim (for better or worse). a-g's quote on WC's information is a bit wrong, but the idea is the same. The vast majority of crimes committed with guns are committed with guns illegally possessed by the criminal. And felons have admitted it's easy for them to obtain weapons, despite not being allowed to purchase them. You can jump to a bunch of conclusions for either side from that information, my particular focus on the information I have was the Economic effects of guns and gun control. Which produced some really interesting papers if that's you cup of tea. I'll see if I can find some of the papers I used, it was a few years ago. I don't own guns, I don't have a desire to own any guns, and in all honesty I'm a little uncomfortable having guns around me in a private residence. Still, I believe that we(those of us in America) have a right to own the guns, and for good reason. I'm not worried about the private citizen who wants to own a gun, but I am much more worried about the government that doesn't want me to have them 'For my own good.' WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Re: Twinblades, I was thinking more of this situation going down in a deserted street. Not in the store itself. And as a little aside, I have no beef at all with people owning guns if they're into hunting or whatever. Just in case I came off like I did ;p Ahh, nah. I mean, I'm not into being bada$$ and capping every douche that threatens my peace. If his gun is at my head because I was bored of the wife and meandering a back alley look for some, I'll lay down and be robbed. But my hopes are that it would be a community thing, that good people will keep eachother safe, which over history as been proven the case. You didn't come across as negative at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 first off. Guns are like passwords. They make you FEEL safe. A poorly trained person is ALOT more likely to **** up than a trained person. SO I agree with testing before liscensing. And as far as a dark abandoned street. Why the **** are you there at night anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Yeah, there are plenty of stories of dumb people pulling guns and using them to intimidate others (something a gun should never be used for), only to have said gun taken from them, and then being shot with the gun (that happened in Texas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 SO I agree with testing before liscensing. And as far as a dark abandoned street. Why the **** are you there at night anyway Cause NEKKY put me there! I had to get out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Yeah' date=' there are plenty of stories of dumb people pulling guns and using them to intimidate others (something a gun should never be used for), only to have said gun taken from them, and then being shot with the gun (that happened in Texas).[/quote'] If it happens in New York, the person who got shot gets to sue the person he was intimidating and walk away with all his money legally. Liberals... is there anything they can't complicate beyond intelligence? I half expect to have a law passed dictating how I can, and can not, put on my pants in the morning. "You have to jump in the air and put both legs on at once? Why in the hell?! What? So the other leg doesn't feel bad? Oh, and so there is less chance of one being damaged before the other? Are you kidding me?" a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Liberals... is there anything they can't complicate beyond intelligence? Beyond YOUR intelligence, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think lawsuits like that are absolutely rediculous. Everyone wants to get rich quick, and get a piece of the pie, or whatever, and to do that they sue fast food for making them fat (anyone who has ever eaten fast food can attest to the huge ammount of grease), Mcdonalds for burning them (WTF? Its coffee! Don't put it between you're fecking legs.). In my oppinion if you ate at the golden arches so much you got fat, or if you stuck coffee between your legs then you deserve the outcome of said choice. I am convinced an unchecked liberal government will be the end of us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I wish we could go back to the days where everyone visibly carried a sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I always thought a big axe was more intimidating than a sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I always thought a big axe was more intimidating than a sword. Visually, perhaps. However, while you were still hefting the axe for the first swing, you would lose your first, and probably second limb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 The sword is more precise. The axe, while a terrible tool of destruction, requires much more strength to adequately maneuver with the precision of the sword. I suppose this is why we have romanticized the sword - other than the fact it is a phallic symbol - over most other weapons. There are no lightsaber-esque axes, though that would surely be a sight to see. Guns take very little skill to be deadly. Point. Pull trigger. Repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Guns take very little skill to be deadly. Point. Pull trigger. Repeat. Oversimplified, obviously. But generally speaking, accurate. Also, with the exception of the Matrix and the movie Wanted, there is no defense against a gun - which makes it a kind of dishonorable weapon in a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Sure there is defense. You ever see a news clip of the police charing and an ensuing gunfight? People shoot at each other for 20 freaking minutes and not one person gets shot. Personally, that blows my mind lol. I go shoot with police on occasion and I've seen them run through the targets (though, my brother in law generally comes in first). Also, a-g, that person I was talking about in Texas, the mugger who had his gun taken away from him and was shot with it... well, he didn't last long enough to sue the poor guy defending himself. It's like that other guy that they were trying to imprison. Some dudes busted into his neighbors house, so he called the cops. When he got fed up with waiting for them 15 minutes later (meanwhile the thieves are robbing the other house blind), he says to the opperator "forget it, i'm going to shoot them myself." 5 minutes, and 3 shotgun blasts later he gets back on the phone with the opperator and says "hey, no need to send the police, just an ambulance". You can hear the blasts on the recording of the 9/11 call (it was on the news). Evidently this pissed off a bunch of the liberal population and tried to get him thrown in jail. Not in Texas suckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Beyond YOUR intelligence' date=' no. [/quote'] Thank you for catching my sarcasm. But, I do half believe it. Now, I did generalize Liberals (I am a registered one, actually), but, my problem is the incessant pandering to everyone involved in hopes of passing and legislating morality so no one feels left out. Which is a problem, as morals are defined by the individual in many cases (past the basics which we can all agree upon). But, everyone is guilty of this, not just Libs. Conservatives have no heart, and therefor make no bones about why they're passing things... money. (turn on sarcasm detectors for that one.) But, yeah. It's easier to bitch and moan about politics than discuss them. No one is gonna change your mind, unless the person that made your mind up for you changes it. (As in, most people I know are politically aligned because of one or two other people they admire are the same. In the end, they are the only ones who will change a that persons mind.) Very rarely will someone be able to come to their own conclusions (that might offend some people here, but it is true), and those that can usually don't fit into the political spectrum anywhere, as their desires for the country are so misaligned with the mainstream that everyone thinks they're worse than a 3rd party. That being said... firearms take a lot of skill to use correctly. Just as much as a sword. The blind squawking that "point and click." is just as laughable as "Swing and slash." with swords. It's the basic skateboard philosophy; Just because someone was good with it 10(or 500 as the case may be) years ago doesn't make you cool with it now. (save me the Xgames rant, I realize it's a sport and it's still very much alive.) I am no marksman. I rarely shoot (Three times in my life, now). I have such a limited experience with swords/rapier/etc. What was harder to use? The firearm for me. In a crowded place the gun is more dangerous. As, when people clear out of swinging range of a sword, the gun can still smack 'em. And if you miss your opponent with a sword, you hit the floor and any idiot standing within three feet. You miss your enemy with a rifle, you've hit the people running away from the fight who had no point in it. As for dishonourable weapons? There is no such thing as Honour when you're killing someone. People have to realize this, death is never "Honourable", it's never "Romantic". Just because Jack drowned after his ship sunk doesn't mean when you're in the north Atlantic you're gonna look back fondly on getting drawn in the buff... you'll be jacked in the head for life after watching your lover drown. Further, shooting someone or stabbing them... same honour involved. None. Wanna honour someone with a weapon? Put it away. If you're worrying about honour in a fight for your life, wake up and realize you're not the sun of Kang and that Lucas will charge you for using his code. That is... if you're not already dead. But the sword is romanticized, you are entirely right. Imagine what would happen if the Crusades were fought with men swinging envelops? I'd imagine wallets and women would be considered warriors or warrior-esc equipment. There is a lot to behold of a man running through the battlefield, shining in armour, and crying "bible and sword!" swinging a sharp, four foot section of steel. It is religious and romantic and inspiring and dammit... I'll be in my bunk. But, one thing I hear a lot that makes me cringe is, "The gun is impersonal, the sword is how wars should be fought." (no one said it here, but I've heard it frequent these discussions and want to preemp it) The problem is, taking a life is never not personal. If you can see a person, you are not going to be the same after pulling the trigger or pulling the sword. The only time killing/murder because passe is when it's a button pressed to launch a missile or open a valve. And it isn't because ramifications aren't the same, it's because there is a visible(or lack of it) separation/detachment of what was done and the outcome of the action. Even if afterward someone who launched the rocket is shown pictures of the devastation, there is still a distance that can be held through detachment. Something I like to tell the Samuari and Zombie Apocalypse freaks at the local game store: "The gun is here to stay for a reason... learn to use it. Now pass me my d8 cause while you were charging me I shot you in the head. Good luck on the next character sheet." a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirax Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Gun crime is getting a lot worse over here in the uk, but knife crime is way out of control. Simply put criminals will use whatever they can to intimidate, rob, kill etc. But I myself think the Americans have it right with being able to own a gun to defend your home and family, nothing is more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 You misunderstand me. A gun takes less skill to be deadly - it is a more efficient killing tool; this is why it supercedes the sword much like the sword superceded the sharp stick. A six year old boy pointing a gun at you versus a six year old boy pointing a sword at you. The sword leaves you more room to maneuver to save your life. Guns, like any fired weapons, takes marksman training. This is not to understate the skill needed to effectively use one. However, the gun is a highly more efficient killing tool over other ranged weapons, say, bows and arrows - which require loading time. Efficiency versus Efficacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Guns aren't that scary anyway. I bought an ironman suit. What, suckas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 It's like that other guy that they were trying to imprison. Some dudes busted into his neighbors house' date=' so he called the cops. When he got fed up with waiting for them 15 minutes later (meanwhile the thieves are robbing the other house blind), he says to the opperator "forget it, i'm going to shoot them myself." 5 minutes, and 3 shotgun blasts later he gets back on the phone with the opperator and says "hey, no need to send the police, just an ambulance". You can hear the blasts on the recording of the 9/11 call (it was on the news). Evidently this pissed off a bunch of the liberal population and tried to get him thrown in jail. Not in Texas suckers.[/quote'] You are seriously fine with that? If anyone died, that IS murder. He was not in danger. He went INSIDE a house (not his own) and shot people inside it. He needs to be arrested. That is not his job and he put far more people in danger by doing what he did. I am appalled. What if someone were in the house while it was being robbed and he shot them by accident? Jesus christ that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.