141 replies to this topic

[Simon-]

TheLegendOfMart, on 23 January 2013 - 10:21, said:

Only an idiot can think that more guns is the best way to fight against guns. If guns were banned back in the day her family would probably still be alive.

If they were banned back in the day, more guns would not help. However the reality in the US is that the threshold has been crossed where guns are so prevalent, that it is relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun on the black market that more guns (in the right hands) and making it easy to get more guns is the only thing that can fight the guns in the wrong hands, barring any magical new technology that can remove all the illegal guns, back to being a pre-gun prevalence state.

Problem is it's still too easy on the legal side. It has to be easy - up to a point. Once you cross that point and people who are unfit to own guns responsibly can get guns legally, then it is aiding the side that you are trying to protect against.

I agree that there should be in-home inspections, I would go as far as mental health assessments, yearly inspections of the gun safe and random inspections as a condition of firearm ownership. Make sure that they are really locked up properly and is not a drug den - nothing more (nothing too intrusive). It would create a lot of jobs too.

But bottom line is that guns need to stay, they are the only effective solution to stop the country from being over run by criminals.

Compare it to a more obvious scenario. If Israel stopped all of the citizens from carrying guns within the country, what do you think would happen? They would be quickly over-run by their enemies because there is no deterrent and nothing to stop them. Some people here hate Israel and would see this as a good thing, but that is not the point. The point is that a country under threat from enemy guns (criminal or combatant) needs to have guns to keep their enemy in check.

[Richteralan]

freak180, on 23 January 2013 - 10:36, said:

Location: England

Soooo....should I respond this to Americans commenting other countries' news?

Simon-, on 23 January 2013 - 12:22, said:

If they were banned back in the day, more guns would not help. However the reality in the US is that the threshold has been crossed where guns are so prevalent, that it is relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun on the black market that more guns (in the right hands) and making it easy to get more guns is the only thing that can fight the guns in the wrong hands, barring any magical new technology that can remove all the illegal guns, back to being a pre-gun prevalence state.

Problem is it's still too easy on the legal side. It has to be easy - up to a point. Once you cross that point and people who are unfit to own guns responsibly can get guns legally, then it is aiding the side that you are trying to protect against.

I agree that there should be in-home inspections, I would go as far as mental health assessments, yearly inspections of the gun safe and random inspections as a condition of firearm ownership. Make sure that they are really locked up properly and is not a drug den - nothing more (nothing too intrusive). It would create a lot of jobs too.

But bottom line is that guns need to stay, they are the only effective solution to stop the country from being over run by criminals.

Compare it to a more obvious scenario. If Israel stopped all of the citizens from carrying guns within the country, what do you think would happen? They would be quickly over-run by their enemies because there is no deterrent and nothing to stop them. Some people here hate Israel and would see this as a good thing, but that is not the point. The point is that a country under threat from enemy guns (criminal or combatant) needs to have guns to keep their enemy in check.

Do you wear 5 tin foil hats?

I have another one if you want.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Simon-, on 23 January 2013 - 12:22, said:

If they were banned back in the day, more guns would not help. However the reality in the US is that the threshold has been crossed where guns are so prevalent, that it is relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun on the black market that more guns (in the right hands) and making it easy to get more guns is the only thing that can fight the guns in the wrong hands, barring any magical new technology that can remove all the illegal guns, back to being a pre-gun prevalence state.

There are other solutions. For instance, you could stop the supply of ammunition for existing calibres—or impose a supertax to get around the libertarians—and make legal weapons use a new calibre - guns aren't all that much use without ammunition. Will that solve it? Of course not, though it's easier tracking down people making ammunition illegally than it is tracking down illegal guns when ammunition is freely purchasable.

If you have a high murder rate you don't simply give up and say "there's nothing we can do about it now" - the gun situation is no different. Rather than complaining about what won't work people need to look for what will work. Limiting magazine sizes is a start; banning the most dangerous types of ammo can only help; closing loopholes for background checks is a win-win; requiring inspections to ensure weapons are safely stored in a locked gun cabinet is a must, etc. If you start by banning the most dangerous calibres and working your way down then you don't leave citizens unarmed and vulnerable but you can reduce the number of firearms fatalities. The United States has a completely different gun culture to other countries so obviously it needs a different approach but there has to be an approach - simply flooding the country with even more firearms can only end badly.

[ninja502]

muggerfugger, on 23 January 2013 - 03:34, said:

People have been killing people long before video games. If anything video games relieve my urge to kill others in real life

Crazy people are maybe just attracted to violent games, so it could be the other way around.

they tried this crap back in the 90's and all we got was the rating system . I know all us older gamers remember the crap that
mortal kombat and night trap started , maybe Obama will bring in the nut jack Thompson to help bs the house into getting it passed
and talk about how bad the games were back then


it should be up to the parents ( not government ) to decide what there kids can handle and to step up more on what there kids do and watch
some parents just don't give a darn and let there kids play what ever they want. I sell used games and I seen parents buy games like gta for kinds under 9 even after you warn them about language and content.we don't need our games getting stripped and removed of content like what Germany does to some if its games if it doesn't just ban everything first

[shakey]

Why can't people realize that when guns get limited or banned, it won't be a instant fix, and instead, will be a long term issue to keep on top of. Sure, many people will still have guns at the beginning. But give it a few years, and as the law gets more of those guns taken away, the amount of them available will drop. Soon, there will be so little guns, that if someone did want one, it would be too expensive for anyone but those with a ton of money. It wouldn't be available to basically 80% of the population.
Sure, it wont be instant, but people don't or can't seem to think about long term. Long term, gun bans would gradually eliminate most guns around. And as those with the guns get caught or taken away, the supply will just keep dwindling. It's called thinking ahead.

[Growled]

Where in the world are all these crazy people coming from?

[sidroc]

I have one NRA family member and he is absolutely nuts about guns. He's a die hard creationist republican who buys gins like groceries. He has a 5 by 5 foot pile of ammo all loaded into high cap mags for any from from his glock to his 408 Chey tak. He has survival kits in his house and has one for all his kids because he's convinced the government is going to declare martial law to take away his guns. This is your average fringe gun owner and their scary as can be. The worst part is he holds a FFL and can buy guns normally restricted to civilians and he doesn't keep them in a gun safe. Guns and ammo litter his house and his kids have access. He also never locks his door.

[KingCracker]

sidroc, on 24 January 2013 - 04:57, said:

I have one NRA family member and he is absolutely nuts about guns. He's a die hard creationist republican who buys gins like groceries. He has a 5 by 5 foot pile of ammo all loaded into high cap mags for any from from his glock to his 408 Chey tak. He has survival kits in his house and has one for all his kids because he's convinced the government is going to declare martial law to take away his guns. This is your average fringe gun owner and their scary as can be.

I have over 10,000 rounds of ammo and i'd buy guns like groceries if I had the money but don't confuse a hobby with someone that wants to shoot up a school. I mean really, does it make a difference how many guns someone has? So because I have more than one gun that makes me suspicious? I am no different than a computer nerd the only difference is a computer nerd uses computers, fiddles with them and buys the latest tech, same with me except I fiddle with guns (in a safe manner) and buy guns.

Oh yeah I remember you think people are crazy for having a hobby that involves guns now. Never mind, continue to be paranoid, over and out.

[sidroc]

KingCracker, on 24 January 2013 - 05:02, said:

I have over 10,000 rounds of ammo and i'd buy guns like groceries if I had the money but don't confuse a hobby with someone that wants to shoot up a school. I mean really, does it make a difference how many guns someone has? So because I have more than one gun that makes me suspicious? I am no different than a computer nerd the only difference is a computer nerd uses computers, fiddles with them and buys the latest tech, same with me except I fiddle with guns (in a safe manner) and buy guns.

Oh yeah I remember you think people are crazy for having a hobby that involves guns now. Never mind, continue to be paranoid, over and out.

And you are just as insane as my family member. I have had to explain to his kids in private many times the government isn't going to come take them in the night from him and that Obama getting another term doesn't mean they wont live long enough to get to highschool.

So everyone knows, I am a conceal carry holder and practice regularly. I have even had to pull my concealed weapon before. I carry everywhere and own enough ammo when not out practicing for 2 mags. I support practical gun control and find myself a sane gun owner.

[KingCracker]

sidroc, on 24 January 2013 - 05:04, said:

And you are just as insane as my family member. I have had to explain to his kids in private many times the government isn't going to come take them in the night from him and that Obama getting another term doesn't mean they wont live long enough to get to highschool.

Sid i'm probably more sane than a lot of people on this forum. Just because I own guns doesn't mean squat. I promise you that you wont hear about me shooting up any schools or any other public places. I'm not insane as you think I am. I think you are a scared little man, I even doubt you'd use your gun if you had to. You are probably one of those gun owners that say I have a gun, that's enough, I'll just throw it in the back of the closet and be done with it.

[rippleman]

Thank Goodness for the 2nd Amendment, for a moment i thought this was a bad story.

[sidroc]

KingCracker, on 24 January 2013 - 05:10, said:

Sid i'm probably more sane than a lot of people on this forum. Just because I own guns doesn't mean squat. I promise you that you wont hear about me shooting up any schools or any other public places. I'm not insane as you think I am. I think you are a scared little man, I even doubt you'd use your gun if you had to.

No but if a federal officer showed up with questions about your unusual stockpile i can see you flipping and shooting him. Remember the ocklohoma city bombing was a conservative terrorist.

[KingCracker]

sidroc, on 24 January 2013 - 05:11, said:

No but if a federal officer showed up with questions about your unusual stockpile i can see you flipping and shooting him. Remember the ocklohoma city bombing was a conservative terrorist.

No, I wouldn't be shooting them i'd be getting ready to call my lawyer because last time I checked I wasn't doing anything usual or illegal. But apparently to you l'm an extremist now because I enjoy the shooting sports?

[rippleman]

KingCracker, on 24 January 2013 - 05:10, said:

Sid i'm probably more sane than a lot of people on this forum. Just because I own guns doesn't mean squat. I promise you that you wont hear about me shooting up any schools or any other public places. I'm not insane as you think I am. I think you are a scared little man, I even doubt you'd use your gun if you had to. You are probably one of those gun owners that say I have a gun, that's enough, I'll just throw it in the back of the closet and be done with it.

technically you are scared, you are the one not sure of your ability and subsidize that ability that with a gun.

Even the manufactures know it:

[sidroc]

KingCracker, on 24 January 2013 - 05:13, said:

No, I wouldn't be shooting them i'd be getting ready to call my lawyer. And unusual, so l'm an extremist now because I enjoy the shooting sports?

I bet you that their also all not locked securely in safes with ammo in desperate safes. You might fire back i need them accessible for self defense. I say the only one that should be outside a safe when not in use is your primary carry weapon.