poll: guns

[PokerPacker]

Also, to all of those people comparing guns to driving a car, don't do that. Driving a car has an extremely significant role in almost all adults lives, in that they get to their job via car. A gun, however, has only the purposes of killing. Whether it is an animal, innocent, or intruder, a gun is designed to kill. Therefore, a parallel can't be drawn between the two.

a paralell can be drawn when comparing the number of deaths caused concerning the two. and you see how little effect guns really have in the big picture

[skinfan133]

Also, to all of those people comparing guns to driving a car, don't do that. Driving a car has an extremely significant role in almost all adults lives, in that they get to their job via car. A gun, however, has only the purposes of killing. Whether it is an animal, innocent, or intruder, a gun is designed to kill. Therefore, a parallel can't be drawn between the two.

guns can also be peoples tools of the trade too. lots of guys i know who serve own their own guns. so saying there isnt any comparison at all is flawed.

[DieHardWSHfan]

a paralell can be drawn when comparing the number of deaths caused concerning the two. and you see how little effect guns really have in the big picture

yes, but smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths in the country, and obeisity is 2nd. But if we make smoking illegal, it is my impression that more people will do it. And if we make food illegal, then everybody will die. While I realize the deaths caused by guns pale in comparison to other causes, we still should try to restrict the causes of death that we can. While I do not believe in making guns illegal, one should be able to understand the anti-gun crowd's opinion because even though cars do kill a lot of people, they do more good than harm, and we need cars. However, guns don't do more good than harm. And while that harm may be smaller than what cars do, every little action taken to prevent deaths add up.

[skinfan133]

yes, but smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths in the country, and obeisity is 2nd. But if we make smoking illegal, it is my impression that more people will do it. And if we make food illegal, then everybody will die. While I realize the deaths caused by guns pale in comparison to other causes, we still should try to restrict the causes of death that we can. While I do not believe in making guns illegal, one should be able to understand the anti-gun crowd's opinion because even though cars do kill a lot of people, they do more good than harm, and we need cars. However, guns don't do more good than harm. And while that harm may be smaller than what cars do, every little action taken to prevent deaths add up.

actually abortion is leading cause of preventable death in the US, but its irelevant to your point....

[DieHardWSHfan]

guns can also be peoples tools of the trade too. lots of guys i know who serve own their own guns. so saying there isnt any comparison at all is flawed.

Their "trade" is warfare, and I condone guns in times of war. There is a difference between owning a gun in order to protect your country, and owning a gun because you think you might want to take on the government some day. And there is a major difference between that 2nd option and driving your car to work everyday.

[DieHardWSHfan]

actually abortion is leading cause of preventable death in the US, but its irelevant to your point....

Lol, my personal viewpoint is that they're not alive until they're born. And if it is a death, then is every moment a woman turns down sexual intercourse a death too, because life could have been made? But that's a whole other topic completely. Thank you for the insight.

[PokerPacker]

what about bounty hunters? thier trade is in weaponry.

[SUNSTONE]

I voted for the first option. If you cant defend yourself and your home with a shotgun or rifle (or katana) i certainly dont think you should be allowed to own an automatic weapon. I mean seriously, why does anyone need one? Answer me that. Then we'll get to handguns.

In case of an invasion by an army or large gang.

Also there were qoutes in that video I posted where Thomas Jefferson said we should have them to help keep the government in check. Or something like that.

I wouldn't mind having machine guns available to the public. BUT only if the laws for allowing consealed weapons weren't as strict.

Just imagine if the majority of the population carried guns. How many people would rethink about robbing a store, or going into a post office and open firing. Or if teachers carried them, how many of these kids could have been stopped.

It's tough, I don't think there are no white or black answers.

I definitly see some of your arguements on this.

[DieHardWSHfan]

what about bounty hunters? thier trade is in weaponry.

bounty hunters usually need their marks alive, not dead. Therefore, a gun would be counterproductive. Sure, the bounty hunter could should them in the leg, which wouldn't kill them, but some sort of stun gun, sleeping pills, etc would do the job more efficiently.

[DieHardWSHfan]

It's tough, I don't think there are any white or black answers.

I definitly see some of your arguements on this.

Agreed.

[PleaseBlitz]

In case of an invasion by an army or large gang.

Also there were qoutes in that video I posted where Thomas Jefferson said we should have them to help keep the government in check. Or something like that.

I wouldn't mind having machine guns available to the public. BUT only if the laws for allowing consealed weapons weren't as strict.

Just imagine if the majority of the population carried guns. How many people would rethink about robbing a store, or going into a post office and open firing. Or if teachers carried them, how many of these kids could have been stopped.

It's tough, I don't think there are no white or black answers.

I definitly see some of your arguements on this.

AN INVASION BY AN ARMY?????? WHAT??????? Sunstone. This is AMERICA. No one is invading. And if you are worried about gangs, maybe you should move to a different block.

I dont WANT to own a gun. Theyre dangerous, and i wouldnt want one in the house. ESPECIALLY if i ever have kids (god forbid.) And if EVERYONE owned a gun, THEN it would be a much closer parallel to cars, because MOST people are ****ty drivers. IF everyone HAD to own a gun, 90% of people would be dangerous to everyone around them at all times. Can you imagine your grandmother carrying a .45? WTF? Mine cant even figure out the remote. If she had to carry a GUN she'd walk around all day leaving a wake of death in her path muttering "Oh dear, oh dear." :laugh:

Definitly no clear answers. I guess we just have to leave it up to the lobbyists. :doh:

[PokerPacker]

bounty hunters usually need their marks alive, not dead. Therefore, a gun would be counterproductive. Sure, the bounty hunter could should them in the leg, which wouldn't kill them, but some sort of stun gun, sleeping pills, etc would do the job more efficiently.

stun guns have a different effect on different people. some people will be incapacitated, and some will be uneffected what-so-ever. as a bounty hunter, you'd prefer not to fire you weapon, but the bigger gun you have in your hand, the more likely your target is going to surrender.

if you've ever watched "Dog the Bounty Hunter" on the discovery channel, its about a real life bounty hunter. some of his targets turn themselves in, and some of them he has to storm with a well armed militia.

[SUNSTONE]

AN INVASION BY AN ARMY?????? WHAT??????? Sunstone. This is AMERICA. No one is invading. And if you are worried about gangs, maybe you should move to a different block.

I dont WANT to own a gun. Theyre dangerous, and i wouldnt want one in the house. ESPECIALLY if i ever have kids (god forbid.) And if EVERYONE owned a gun, THEN it would be a much closer parallel to cars, because MOST people are ****ty drivers. IF everyone HAD to own a gun, 90% of people would be dangerous to everyone around them at all times. Can you imagine your grandmother carrying a .45? WTF? Mine cant even figure out the remote. If she had to carry a GUN she'd walk around all day leaving a wake of death in her path muttering "Oh dear, oh dear." :laugh:

Definitly no clear answers. I guess we just have to leave it up to the lobbyists. :doh:

Didn't you watch Red Dawn?

An invasion is possible, but improbable.

If we went to a big war, and our defenses were weak, we could be attacked during that time.

A gang doesn't have to be some crips and blood type stuff over in LA.

It could be a small group of drunk men pissed that you killed their dog.

This actually happened to a coworker of mine.

He was walking his dog down the street when 2 pittbulls attacked him and his dog.

He managed to pull out a knife and gutted the dog that was attacking him.

The dog made a big "yelp" and died. The other dog immediatly stopped and backed off.

Well the owners of those dogs were a bunch of rednecks, and they weren't too happy that their dog was killed.

He went home and a few minutes later two vehicles pull up full of guys looking to do some damage.

He got his handgun, and gave his wife the rifle and told her to stand at the window ready to use it.

She also called the cops.

Nothing happened that day, and those guns helped.

But what if they had guns of their own?

A situation can easily be drawn up where a group of pissed individuals could attack a house, where a handgun and or rifle/shotgun might not be enough.

A month ago a man saw another man chase down his own son and murdered him with a machette.

If he was carrying a gun on him, he could have prevented that.

[SUNSTONE]

bounty hunters usually need their marks alive, not dead. Therefore, a gun would be counterproductive. Sure, the bounty hunter could should them in the leg, which wouldn't kill them, but some sort of stun gun, sleeping pills, etc would do the job more efficiently.

How about a gun vs stungun, who wins?

The gun.

And I don't see anyone doing a bounty job on a someone who is facing life without a gun on them.

[SnyderShrugged]

All guns should be legal.

[CrabR]

All guns should be legal.

All guns are legal in Iraq and look how peaceful Iraq is

no autos, collectors only. Auto's have no use in hunting as you are limited by the number of shells you can have in your gun anyway.

[SUNSTONE]

All guns are legal in Iraq and look how peaceful Iraq is

no autos, collectors only. Auto's have no use in hunting as you are limited by the number of shells you can have in your gun anyway.

Are you saying that making all guns legal will turn us into what Iraq is?

That we will have the same problem Iraq is having?

Hunting is not the only reason to have a gun.

Sometimes you need an arsenol for job securety. :peaceout:

[PleaseBlitz]

A month ago a man saw another man chase down his own son and murdered him with a machette.

If he was carrying a gun on him, he could have prevented that.

Yeah, but in your perfect world, the machete wielding murderer would have had a gun instead of a machete. So he would have killed the one guy and then the cops when they came to arrest him.

[Prosperity]

People should have the ability to defend themselves as long as they don't pose a realistic and heavy risk to the rest of society.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'd like to see better safety systems on guns personally - not a ban at all. The problem today seems to be if your gun is secure... it's no good to you in an emergency. If you are able to get to it fast... so is your kid. I'd like some sort of biometric system integrated into firearms limiting who is able to use them.

PLEASE tell me you are kidding?!?!?!! Are you really that naive? People have been trying to develop a 100% perfect system for years and they haven't been able to. Now before you jump into well 90% or 80% effective is good enough, let me tell you... unless the system is 100% effective in every single situation, I'll never own a gun with it. Or I'll have it removed as soon as the gun is purchased, just like I have done with the ridiculous magwell safeties that all S&W semi-auto's and some other guns.

For a gun to be worth having it MUST go BANG!!!! each and every time you pull the trigger. Obviously there are other factors like target recognition and ability to hit the target, but all the practice and preparation in the world is worthless if the gun doesn't go off when you pull the trigger. The styles of systems for biometrics and other hogwash that have been tried and failed so far come nowhere close to that 100% reliability goal that MUST be reached before any system can even be seriously considered by any company.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

This has probably been said, but NO ONE should own a gun who doesn't take the time to go to the range and become COMPLETELY comfortable with it. In various situations.

I don't mean trying to plink bullseyes all day. Practice emulating stressful and reactionary situations.

I am very largely in agreement with this 21KO. I do have a little addendum to add to it as well, though. I believe that anyone who owns a firearm for defensive purposes, should also have sat down and become 100% comfortable with the concept of taking another human being's life, if that eventuality were to occur. If they can't do that, they should not be owning a self-defense firearm.

Where I have to disagree with you is on the "bullseye" thing. A large number of firearms are purchased and used solely for target, sport, and hunting purposes. For those purposes a "bullseye" philosophy works fairly well. Now, if the firearm is also/only going to be used for self-defense purposes, I agree that the gun owner needs to take the time and energy to become competent with the concepts of Stress Fire and realistic self-defense shooting. There are good, solid training programs around the country, including (but by no means limited to): Sig Academy (Exeter, NH), Smith & Wesson Academy (Springfield, MA), Lethal Force Institute - LFI (classes across the country), Gunsite (AZ), etc... There is also a wonderful competitive defensive shooting sport called the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) that people can become involved with.

[SUNSTONE]

Yeah, but in your perfect world, the machete wielding murderer would have had a gun instead of a machete. So he would have killed the one guy and then the cops when they came to arrest him.

What is my perfect world?

All I said was "Just imagine if the majority of the population carried guns. How many people would rethink about robbing a store, or going into a post office and open firing. Or if teachers carried them, how many of these kids could have been stopped."

The way it is now, you have to pay money to carry a gun around.

A lot of people don't carry guns for that reason.

If there were more guns in the hands of every day people, I think a lot of criminals would rethink what they were doing.

Seriel Killers don't use guns, but what if their victims had them. Maybe they would have stopped them.

[Destino]

PLEASE tell me you are kidding?!?!?!! Are you really that naive? People have been trying to develop a 100% perfect system for years and they haven't been able to. Now before you jump into well 90% or 80% effective is good enough, let me tell you... unless the system is 100% effective in every single situation, I'll never own a gun with it. Or I'll have it removed as soon as the gun is purchased, just like I have done with the ridiculous magwell safeties that all S&W semi-auto's and some other guns.

For a gun to be worth having it MUST go BANG!!!! each and every time you pull the trigger. Obviously there are other factors like target recognition and ability to hit the target, but all the practice and preparation in the world is worthless if the gun doesn't go off when you pull the trigger. The styles of systems for biometrics and other hogwash that have been tried and failed so far come nowhere close to that 100% reliability goal that MUST be reached before any system can even be seriously considered by any company.

Settle down drama queen I pretty much agree with you. The systems developed to this point haven't been good enough. I also agree that only 100% is good enough and personally I wouldn't settle for 80 or even 90 percent. That does not mean however that it is impossible. If we can get to the moon and send landers to mars I think that eventually someone will be able to come up with something that recognizes the user of a firearm.

[PleaseBlitz]

What is my perfect world?

All I said was "Just imagine if the majority of the population carried guns. How many people would rethink about robbing a store, or going into a post office and open firing. Or if teachers carried them, how many of these kids could have been stopped."

The way it is now, you have to pay money to carry a gun around.

A lot of people don't carry guns for that reason.

If there were more guns in the hands of every day people, I think a lot of criminals would rethink what they were doing.

Seriel Killers don't use guns, but what if their victims had them. Maybe they would have stopped them.

So in this world where "the majority of the population own guns" you think that it is more likely that the person willing to commit murder DOESNT have a gun, but his victim does? :whoknows:

[SUNSTONE]

So in this world where "the majority of the population own guns" you think that it is more likely that the person willing to commit murder DOESNT have a gun, but his victim does? :whoknows:

No I don't think that.

People are going to kill one way or another.

I'm just saying that if more nonlaw breaking citizens had guns, there would be a lot less crime.

Would you try to rob a person who had "I carry a gun" or something like that in a bumper sticker?

Or would you target soemone you thought was less likely to put up a fight, or less likely to have a gun?