Guns

[YT2095]

I`m the opposite on that "no gun" part though, for ME Personaly, I wouldn`t be without my guns, they are a source of pleasure and enjoyment. I agree that in the main "No Gun" is best for most people even the ones that have only a little interest. it`s got to be something you take 100% seriously or not at all, there`s no "Half way".

[mooeypoo]

Yep, and you're probably one of the few people I actually trust with guns (from what I saw you do and how you work and such) but I believe that most people shouldn't own guns, which in my belief should be ordered in a LAW -- which means there are no "halves" here. No one means no one

 

I do believe by the way, and so does laws in countries that HAVE gun-ban rules, that guns are banned but people with PROPER LISCENCE can buy them. And liscence is a strict checkups / exams thing like we have in israel. Twice a year (or once or three times, depends on what kind of gun you own) you are coming to a shooting range on an OFFICIAL TEST -- if you pass it (meaning if you know how to handle the gun / if oyu have good eyesight / if you don't miss and so on) you get your liscence renewed.

 

The point is that when its all free, it's too broken to CONTROL.

 

So laws about it MUST exist otherwise people who DONT know how to use a gun (err, like in the US..) own guns and that's just reckless, dangerous, and causes accidents and "trigger-happy" tragedy situations.

 

By the way, I was a Lieutenant in the army -- I *organized* and TRAINED soldiers to use M16s and other type of guns and weapons, My own soldiers had guns, I had a gun, I practiced and shot it for about three years. I *know* my way with rifles.

And I am NOT allowed to walk with a gun here anymore (and I got out of the military 6 months ago, not 10 years).

 

I might be able to get a liscence, but I don't have a current one.

 

This is the way things should ahppen. In israel, in order to GET a liscence, you need to prove you need one. You either WORK in smething that requires gun, you either live in a dangerous place, you either have a very good training, or you prove you need it for whatever reason. But the point is that though ALL THE PEOPLE (or the big most of 'em) in israel has TRAINING on guns-- not everyone are allowed to purchase.

 

It's the law, and I truely belive that's the right way of doing things.

 

Olympic guns, by the way, are much easy to get liscence to. You just sign up to a shooting range and you have a liscence to an olympic gun. But I'm sure you'll agree they're extremely different from M16s and rifles.

 

~moo

[YT2095]

well here in the UK, it`s not quite that simple, even for an Olympic gun (and I`m not in that catagory as I lack the money and will).

but here you sign up to a gun club, after a "trick question" paper you`ll then be put on a 6 month probationary period, in which time you must attend each week on the range with the range officer for lessons and guidance, during that time you`ll be taken through almost every possible type of regular ammo from .22 all the way up short of a 50 callibre

and taken through various gun problems and how to sort them. after such time you may THEN apply for a liscence (you`re already registered with the police as a gun user). after your Liscense is granted (and paid for) you may Purchase a firearm and ammo, but you still can`t own it at home, it must remain at the club all locked up and safe. to take one home you need to meet certain storage regulations and pass another writen test to show you understand the rules and regs. even then taking home live ammo is not allowed in many instances, except for 12 guage shotguns, and anyone can own one of those with minimal liscensing

[mooeypoo]

It's pretty similar here, when I said olympic gun i meant "tutu-gun", the one with tiny led bullets. There's a procedure to get it, but it's not as hard as a REAL gun.

 

And I strongly believe in liscensing. That causes two things:

 

a) those who don't need a gun aren't willing to put the money and effort.

b) those who HAVE a gun you can be sure that know how to use it and guard it.

 

And of course here you are also meant to lock it in a safe , seperated from the ammo and all that. That's basic gun-handling though.

 

That's what SHOULD happen.

 

~moo

[YT2095]

total agreement there, even my gas or air gun ammo I keep in a different room!

[jgerlica]

At this point, I would like to quote Demonax. "All laws are probably useless, as good men are made no better by them, and the evil care naught."

[Sayonara]

At this point, I would like to quote Demonax. "All laws are probably useless, as good men are made no better by them, and the evil care naught."

That doesn't really help at all though, does it?

 

We're discussing whether people should have the right to own whatever guns they want, not whether we think those rights need laws to make them enforceable.

[YT2095]

we should have the right to own anything we choose to! I say we don`t have the right to harm or endanger others by our actions however.

 

and a "Good man" will know the difference!

[Sayonara]

That was nice and objective.

[YT2095]

how can it not be anything OTHER than subjective/personal guidance, when you preclude such things as external laws/influence here:

 

We're discussing whether people should have the right to own whatever guns they want, not whether we think those rights need laws to make them enforceable.

???

[Sayonara]

Laws are a system of control we invented in order to allow society to protect rights. The reason laws have to exist is because different cultures - in fact, even different regions within some countries, a la United States - have reason to enforce protection of those rights in different ways.

 

The rights come first. The laws follow. I don't see how you have an argument there that makes peoples' rights subjective.

[YT2095]

That was nice and objective.

so that was not a sarcastic comment then?

[Sayonara]

What?

[mooeypoo]

we should have the right to own anything we choose to! I say we don`t have the right to harm or endanger others by our actions however.

 

I disagree.

Do you think people should be allowed to keep atomic bombs at their back yards? How 'bout Anthrax? Sarin gas? Oh, I know, a TANK!

 

I am being sarcastic, but I do that to show my point. I agree with you that people should be free -- but that freedom shouldn't be endless. It *stops* when it is putting other people in danger.

 

If I keep closed boxes of Sarin Gas in my house - do you think that I shouldn't be arrested BEFORE I manage to accidentally harm anyone with it? Because by what you're sying, I *should* have the right to hold them, I just shouldn't have the right to use them... so tell me, if I shouldn't use them, why should I have it?

 

I must say that this also opens up a big openning for errors. Where's the line between owning a gun and using it (hence, killing someone) ?

If you OWN a gun, you mean to use it EXACTLY like if I own sarin gas I mean to use it.

 

Same thing, only sarin gas sounds a lot more dangerous.

 

 

Unfortunately, fact is less people died of Sarin Gas in the past 10 years than of handguns.

 

~moo

[blike]

The opposite also applies. A stick? A stone? A kitchen kinfe? These are all things that can cause harm. Where does freedom begin and end?

 

It *stops* when it is putting other people in danger.

 

My handgun isn't putting anyone in danger just lying there. Neither is my printner, unless I beat someone over the head with it.

[Sayonara]

The opposite also applies. A stick? A stone? A kitchen kinfe? These are all things that can cause harm. Where does freedom begin and end?

 

My handgun isn't putting anyone in danger just lying there. Neither is my printner' date=' unless I beat someone over the head with it.[/quote']

The danger from the gun is that someone other than yourself - whose actions you probably won't want to be responsible for - can pick it up and use it, even cause fatalaties without being trained or licensed to use the weapon in question. They can do a lot more damage with a gun than they can with a stick.

[mooeypoo]

That's true - so laws were made to actually DEFINE this thin line.

 

You can kill someone with a paper bag, if you're choking him with it, and you can kill someone with a swimming pool if you tie him to a large rock and throw him in. The point is not what you can kill with, because that will truely never end. It's what is *intended for killing purposes*.

 

There are certain people I won't trust with a plastic bag, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to own one - however, a plastic bag is meant to carry things and some very imaginative people decided it can be used to kill.

 

A gun is meant to kill people, and some very imaginative people decided it can be used to other purposes that are completely beyond me.

 

So yes, you're right, it's a thin line - but that fact just means that the laws need to be thought of before defining what should and shouldn't be owned.

 

And you're gun *is* putting other people in danger. The only way it isn't, is if you are 150% professional with a handgun, walking 100% of the time with it in a holster on you, seperating ammo and gun when coming home and locking them in a safe, and have the training to not accidentally shoot a prankster kid that alarms you in the middle of the night with a stone on your window.

 

Fact is, most people who own guns are *not* proffesionals, and their guns are not safe. It's a fact, otherwise there wouldn't be so many Killings by guns.

 

And if you're putting your gun in a safe for the entire time you have it, seperated from ammo and all those -- why -- seriously, I don't understand that at all -- do you NEED a gun?

 

I *am* a three-years-trained professional with guns. I live in Israel.

Many will agree that it's not the safest country in the world (much exaggerated in TV, but still), and I don't NEED a gun.

 

I seriously don't get what makes people buy a handgun..

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

The reason the intended use of a man-made object is so important to this discussion is that we have a tendency to redesign things until they perform optimally for that purpose, and not so efficiently at random purpose X. Objects that are not man made rarely have the same qualities required for causing deathness as their fabricated equivalents.

 

Hence a sub-machine gun is great for cutting down a crowd of rampaging monsters, whereas a kitchen knife isn't. A pistol is great for conventiently portioned stopping power, but a stone is just going to take someone's eye out*.

 

 

* 'parents' joke

[YT2095]

WHO is to judge what limits are put on a freedom?

 

all guns owned by trained and good people that know about safety would be praticaly impossible to kill yourself or anyone else with!

you`de have to go on a real easter egg hunt to find my ammo!, you`de probably break your neck on something laying on the floor 1`st before you found it

 

and if I have a "box of sarin gas" (though I can`t think for a second WHY anyone would have that as it has no practical use (unlike a gun). then why not? the Gov can have the stuff!

[Sayonara]

WHO is to judge what limits are put on a freedom?

For the past few centuries, that has been society.

 

all guns owned by trained and good people that know about safety would be praticaly impossible to kill yourself or anyone else with!

Not in dispute.

 

you`de have to go on a real easter egg hunt to find my ammo!, you`de probably break your neck on something laying on the floor 1`st before you found it

See: dangerous

 

and if I have a "box of sarin gas" (though I can`t think for a second WHY anyone would have that as it has no practical use (unlike a gun). then why not? the Gov can have the stuff!

Irrelevant.

[mooeypoo]

WHO is to judge what limits are put on a freedom?

 

Excellent question, and we can start talking about that question in a different thread - but this thread talks about the right to own GUNS. Guns that are intended to kill. The "Limits" are pretty clear. No one thinks a stick you find on the street is a GUN, and this thread is not even talking about "weapons" in general - but on GUNS which are quite obvious and known.

 

all guns owned by trained and good people that know about safety would be praticaly impossible to kill yourself or anyone else with!

Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Why on earth would they WANT or NEED any? The danger overcomes the RIGHT to own it. There are a conciderably larger amount of people who DONT know how to use guns (they might think they do..) -- if we set a rule, it's for all. And the "all" proves us again and again that people are NOT careful with guns, or six-year-olds wouldn't kill each other by accident, and highschool kids wouldn't get shot in the middle of the cafeteria, and there wouldn't have been so many cases of gun-inflicted DEATHS over the passed few years.

 

The facts are screaming for themselves..

 

and if I have a "box of sarin gas" (though I can`t think for a second WHY anyone would have that as it has no practical use (unlike a gun). then why not? the Gov can have the stuff!

A few things:

a) The government SHOULDN'T have this stuff, but that's for another discussion. At least they're hiding it, (or trying to?) and they keep it under guard, in the right conditions. That's not really the right way of looking at it because SOLDIERS have guns too.. that doesn't mean civilians should own guns

'sides -- would you SERIOUSLY feel comfortable with yourself and your family if you knew your next door naighbour had a few boxes of sarin gas in his back yard? I know I wouldn't.

 

b)

(though I can`t think for a second WHY anyone would have that as it has no practical use (unlike a gun).

 

EXACTLY.

 

I have no idea not only WHY would anyone WANT to have it, but also WHAT the heck would anyone have to do with it.

 

Same with guns. I'd appreciate if you give me a single good reason why would anyone want to go around with a loaded dangerous gun other than "just 'cause its his freedom". It's our freedom to drive, it doesn't mean we can drive into people. It's also our right to sell and buy whatever we want, it doesnt mean I'd like to see people selling packs of cigarettes in a kindergaden. Why? Because htey have nothing to do there.

 

you`de have to go on a real easter egg hunt to find my ammo!, you`de probably break your neck on something laying on the floor 1`st before you found it

Ah, but we already agreed that you're different

 

No, but seriously, it doesn't matter. My question repeats - if you have your gun and ammo seperated all the time, and you don't really have anyhting to do with the gun = why would you have it? it's DANGEROUS.

 

And I don't mean YOU holding it.. what if a kid finds it? it's not like it didn't happen.

 

What if your house is robbed and someone takes it? What use to you have for it?

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And with gun and ammo seperated, how can you defend yourself?

[iglak]

reason to own a gun: for practicing and because it looks cool.

just like any other weapons....

 

so the big question i saw posted was this: do we change people's minds, making the laws irrelivent; or do we change the laws, making the people's minds irrelivent?

 

if all we do is change the laws, then we'll just have another black market to fight, IMO. when changing the laws, it's rare that everyone follows them.

like drugs....

 

 

And with gun and ammo seperated, how can you defend yourself?

that's a very good question....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh yes, why don't we go around banning swords, they're meant to kill, aren't they?

 

Just showing the irony of the situation...

[atinymonkey]

No, just to show the irony of your post, I'll repost from when that point was originally brought up:-

 

Furthermore' date=' guns have the potential to kill when others don't. What if a midgit attacked me with a candlestick? It'd be pretty simple to beat him off. A midgit with a gun is another matter.

 

[i']I'm in favour of banning all weapons that, some point along the way, don't rely on human effort as their power source[/i].

 

So bows are ok (do you know how difficult it is to shoot a bow with any degree of accuracy?), guns are not. And so on.

 

Furthermore, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' (or any of the variations) is pretty limited, because there are quite a lot of accidental deaths with guns.

 

Just to clarify the law in the UK at least' date=' you require a licence to carry a sword (and in must be in a carry case) in any pubic area. The licence is provided for practitioners of a sport that requires a sword (Fencing or Martial Arts). Private ownership is allowed, but it must be kept on the property. The only exception is for parades or religious occasions, and the weapon must be sheathed at all times.

[/quote']

 

I'm not sure if this is a general reply to the thread' date=' or to me, but here are some thoughts anyway:

 

Swords are usually bought with display or ceremonial purposes in mind. While this is true of a lot of guns, very few people are observed buying swords for the purposes of self defence, or for training every day at the range so that they can defend their families "come the revolution".

 

In short, there is no sword crisis. There's very little kudos or street cred afforded to people who drive around with a rapier in the glove-box.

 

I'm not sure this discussion is really about fear, but if you don't fear someone who has the point of a broadsword pressed against your chest you may have issues (less pressing than the one near your heart, admittedly)

 

Overall, I'd say that the issue of swords is not an argument for preventing the banning of guns. It's more an argument for banning swords as well.

 

Unskilled people attacking with katana tend to cut their own ears off by the way [/quote']

 

And so on. I got bored looking to be honest, but there was no direct counter argument.