guns suck

[loserbutt]

I've always wondered why some people get so obsessed about guns. they're just tools, and an unbalancing one at that. a gun allows a 98 pound weakling to kill the 300 pound he man, but what does that say about the 98 pound weakling? basically, how could anyone be so fascinated by an instrument who's sole purpose is killing/maiming people?

[SunWuKong]

ok i want to stress that let there be a debate about gun control but i'll be keeping an eye on this thread and it'll be closed the minute there is a specific personal attack.

[thaite]

Guns are tools. They require maturity and responsibility.

Don't know why that should mean they and the people who use them 'suck.'

[ellsworth81]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 22 2002, 02:49 PM
I've always wondered why some people get so obsessed about guns. they're just tools, and an unbalancing one at that. a gun allows a 98 pound weakling to kill the 300 pound he man, but what does that say about the 98 pound weakling? basically, how could anyone be so fascinated by an instrument who's sole purpose is killing/maiming people?
have you ever seen how a gun actually works (the mechanical process)? i think it's kind of clever and rather fascinating much like the four-stroke combustion engine.

also, guns empower people that are lacking. it makes us feel strong. cars and planes give us the same satisfaction because we get to defy gravity and move at inhuman speeds. and people aren't about to give up power anytime soon once they've gotten a taste of it.

how does the 98 pound thing relate to this?

and i can't really argue the usefulness of guns. that's a tough ground to hold.

[angel nympho]

Does it really matter WHY we have them? We have them and they are here to stay. And as long as there are gun-toting criminals out there, I want one to keep my family safe.... to even the score. To not allow that otherwise 98-pound weaking to be stronger than me. A... uh, 100-pound weakling. :huh:

[ren28]

I've always wondered why people have a hate of guns when they know nothing about them. These are the same people that talk trash while hiding behind a computer screen, bashing gun owners for absolutely no reason. It is the worst when one assumes that guns will automatically be used for bad reasons. The gun owner is automatically guilty in these peoples' eyes. This probably stems from the fear of guns and simple ignorance. One could say a smaller person needs a gun to fight back against an attacking 300lb monster. But, who is the aggressor here? Should a smaller person not be allowed to defend himself against a big person or has this become free-for-all for 300lb barbarians?

It is very obvious to me that the only "obsession" here lies with people who hate guns. They assume a gun is "an instrument who's sole purpose is killing/maiming people" which is laughable. People use guns for target shooting. People use guns to learn about them and not be afraid of them. People use guns to keep the peace. Most of all, people who are open and free use them as an enjoyable pastime.

Many politicians are making new laws on guns while they know NOTHING about guns other than it gets them votes. They know most people don't know about guns so they make extra laws to sound like they really care. :rolleyes: These politicians play off of peoples' ignorance/fear of guns to get votes. For instance... what is the use of registering an assault rifle again when it's already registered? There is none but that law was passed. That law was an attempt to take peoples' fully legal and registered firearm. No mail. No phonecalls. They expected people to just know about this law through word of mouth. If the deadline was not made... bye bye to the weapon even though it was registered when purchased. This whole time... the government knew full well who owned what. It was just another exercise in the waste of taxpayers money. It was a great victory in the eyes of ignorant voters and to politicians that cashed in on all those votes.

There are enough gun laws in CA. People already cannot buy more than 10 round clips. People cannot have fully auto guns. People cannot get guns over the counter without a waiting period. These CA laws are good and right. People really need to get a grip when it comes to guns and not make judgements based on ignorance and fear.

[Elizabeth A.]

I agree. Guns do suck. Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine"?

[ellsworth81]

fundamentally, i dont really think you can blame guns. if anything, you need to blame people who use guns to kill/hurt others. its kind of like saying rocks and sticks suck because they can kill people. they're all tools misused by stupid, uncaring people. and i'm all for getting rid of them or rehabbing them. whatever comes first i guess.

[Commando_turned_MD]

Guns do not suck. They are an investment, just like stocks and mutual funds, the appreciate over time. Currently my gun collection is worth over $85,000. I have weapons I have collected on the battlefields in Afganistan-----Krinkov, AK-47, AK-74, (fully automatic). These are my war trophies. I have several register, in accordance w/ the NFA act, full auto MP-5 subguns, FN SAW light machine gun, and COLT M-4 carbine. I also have many different silencers for these weapons. Everything is register, per BATF regs.

My toys are currently located in a neighboring state, due to the Republic of Kalifornia ban on new assault weapon entering the state.

Light REN 28 state, some people enjoy hunting and professional target shooting.

If for some reason I can't continue to attend MED school due to a lack of funds, I can always sale my collection for the purpose of finacing school.

I have many friends who are professional---DDS,MD,ESQ, who own and shoot machine guns weekly (TACOMA, WA; Portland, OR: San Antonio , TX, Louisville, KY etc..etc..). It an expensive hobby, but many enjoy it. That's how I started out collecting these exotic toys. The starting price for a Legal register M-16 is $9000.00.. That's the reason why many can't afford these toys except for the professional.

I currently resided in the Los Angeles area. I planned to go target shooting in Las Vegas(5 hours away), where my toys are located (my uncle's ranch), sometime in December. Anyone who is intrested in joining me, send me an email. It's not an everyday thing that you get to fired a real machine gun or sub-machine gun. Maybe your perspective on firearms will change..............................

[wylin]

Originally posted by armycommando_turned_doctor@Nov 22 2002, 05:35 PM
Guns do not suck. They are an investment, just like stocks and mutual funds, the appreciate over time. Currently my gun collection is worth over $85,000. I have weapons I have collected on the battlefields in Afganistan-----Krinkov, AK-47, AK-74, (fully automatic). These are my war trophies. I have several register, in accordance w/ the NFA act, full auto MP-5 subguns, FN SAW light machine gun, and COLT M-4 carbine. I also have many different silencers for these weapons. Everything is register, per BATF regs.

My toys are currently located in a neighboring state, due to the Republic of Kalifornia ban on new assault weapon entering the state.

Light REN 28 state, some people enjoy hunting and professional target shooting.

If for some reason I can't continue to attend MED school due to a lack of funds, I can always sale my collection for the purpose of finacing school.

I have many friends who are professional---DDS,MD,ESQ, who own and shoot machine guns weekly (TACOMA, WA; Portland, OR: San Antonio , TX, Louisville, KY etc..etc..). It an expensive hobby, but many enjoy it. That's how I started out collecting these exotic toys. The starting price for a Legal register M-16 is $9000.00.. That's the reason why many can't afford these toys except for the professional.

I currently resided in the Los Angeles area. I planned to go target shooting in Las Vegas(5 hours away), where my toys are located (my uncle's ranch), sometime in December. Anyone who is intrested in joining me, send me an email. It's not an everyday thing that you get to fired a real machine gun or sub-machine gun. Maybe your perspective on firearms will change..............................
nice looting of dead soldiers still continues?! i just was watching band or brothers DVD omg...those looters are hard core.

[lethal]

I don't think guns are inherently evil. They can serve both useful and harmful purposes. Guns are inanimate objects, they don't think and act for themselves. Really, it is the person behind the gun who misuses it who is evil.

I also favor most gun control laws. Background checks, waiting periods, registration, banning of specific superhazardous gun...theses are all good measures. I certainly don't want something that can kill in the hands of a convicted felon or someone with reduced mental capacity. I don't want a gun bought for the purpose of an immediate criminal activity.

Legitimate gun owners should respect the purpose of these laws, which is to keep legitimate goods out of the hands of illegitimate people. Admittedly some gun laws are written and enforced contrary to these goals. But for the good laws, no gun owner or purchaser should object to a background check or a waiting period (why do they need the gun so soon and if they knew about it, why didn't they plan ahead and buy the gun earlier?). Registration should also be a good thing, especially bullet registration, if it helps catch a criminal like the recent DC sniper.

One argument against gun control is that the majority of guns used in crimes are not obtained legally, so these laws would not prevent them. My response to that is true, but many crimes are perpetrated using legit weapons. If we can help stop them, isn't it woorth a little hassle?

[shaka.brah]

I find it pretty amazing when people place blame on the gun, but not the person behind the gun .. When a drunk driver crashes his car and kills some innocent bystander, I NEVER hear anyone blame the beer or the car ...

[ellsworth81]

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Nov 22 2002, 06:42 PM
I find it pretty amazing when people place blame on the gun, but not the person behind the gun .. When a drunk driver crashes his car and kills some innocent bystander, I NEVER hear anyone blame the beer or the car ...
I'm glad someone noticed that :blink:

[deez nuts]

Curse that gun! The gun walked away by itself and shot someone again!

[amietron]

Originally posted by armycommando_turned_doctor@Nov 22 2002, 05:35 PM
I currently resided in the Los Angeles area. I planned to go target shooting in Las Vegas(5 hours away), where my toys are located (my uncle's ranch), sometime in December. Anyone who is intrested in joining me, send me an email. It's not an everyday thing that you get to fired a real machine gun or sub-machine gun. Maybe your perspective on firearms will change..............................
So, can I go? I wanna try shooting a machine gun. Would I have to get parental consent?

Do you ever go to the range to shoot clay disks? Or hunting?

[iris]

Guns were made for the purpose of killing not only humans but also animals. While one may appreciate the aesthetic form of a firearm or agree on its uses in food acquisition or protection, the principle and purpose behind its origin was to end a life. This is not to say guns always do so, only that they have to potential to carry out their function every time a human has one in his/her hand.

Guns may also save lives. In the case of officers of the law and some citizens, many deaths and injuries have been avoided by brandishing a weapon in order to intimidate a criminal wielding another weapon be it a bomb, knife, gun, etc. However, on the flip side, many people have been killed with guns deliberately or accidentally.

Though it is the person behind the gun that decides to pull the trigger, we are assuming that every person is logical and reasonable. This is not always the case. It is a combination of the weapon and the person that kills. While a crazy may not be able to kill a man with his bare hands, his chances are certainly higher with a gun. While it would have better for guns to have never been invented, they are here to stay. We cannot close the barn door once the horse has gotten loose.

Gun control laws exist to limit the access of irrational humans to firearms. Like everything else in the world, these laws are not perfect, but they are an effort to protect us. Like laws on drugs and other illegal activities, if someone really wanted a gun, nothing could stop them from obtaining one, but having these laws will at least deter a percentage of the population (hopefully the criminal population) from having one in their hands. The penalties are also greater for criminals found with no permits for their guns. Unfortunately, the number of people and criminals owning guns is substantial. It is understandable that fear drives people to want to protect themselves with a firearm. The argument is: if a common criminal has one, why shouldn¡¦t I have one for the protection of my family and myself? Just remember that there are powerful consequences associated with owning a gun. Because we cannot rid society of guns, we should respect them. Guns should not be treated like a toy, a hobby, or as entertainment. If you have one, do learn to use it properly. Go to a shooting range, make sure you know about the safety and put it somewhere where no child will EVER be able to reach it. Guns are weapons of potential death. An ignorant person with a gun in his/her hand is just as dangerous as a person having one with malice in his/her heart.

If you are ever faced with a gun, understand now that your life has just been weighed and measured. You are now worth the $400 dollars someone has paid for the firearm. That is all it takes to decide the path of your life.

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by isyen@Nov 22 2002, 08:13 PM
Guns were made for the purpose of killing not only humans but also animals. While one may appreciate the aesthetic form of a firearm or agree on its uses in food acquisition or protection, the principle and purpose behind its origin was to end a life. This is not to say guns always do so, only that they have to potential to carry out their function every time a human has one in his/her hand.

Guns may also save lives. In the case of officers of the law and some citizens, many deaths and injuries have been avoided by brandishing a weapon in order to intimidate a criminal wielding another weapon be it a bomb, knife, gun, etc. However, on the flip side, many people have been killed with guns deliberately or accidentally.

Though it is the person behind the gun that decides to pull the trigger, we are assuming that every person is logical and reasonable. This is not always the case. It is a combination of the weapon and the person that kills. While a crazy may not be able to kill a man with his bare hands, his chances are certainly higher with a gun. While it would have better for guns to have never been invented, they are here to stay. We cannot close the barn door once the horse has gotten loose.

Gun control laws exist to limit the access of irrational humans to firearms. Like everything else in the world, these laws are not perfect, but they are an effort to protect us. Like laws on drugs and other illegal activities, if someone really wanted a gun, nothing could stop them from obtaining one, but having these laws will at least deter a percentage of the population (hopefully the criminal population) from having one in their hands. The penalties are also greater for criminals found with no permits for their guns. Unfortunately, the number of people and criminals owning guns is substantial. It is understandable that fear drives people to want to protect themselves with a firearm. The argument is: if a common criminal has one, why shouldn¡¦t I have one for the protection of my family and myself? Just remember that there are powerful consequences associated with owning a gun. Because we cannot rid society of guns, we should respect them. Guns should not be treated like a toy, a hobby, or as entertainment. If you have one, do learn to use it properly. Go to a shooting range, make sure you know about the safety and put it somewhere where no child will EVER be able to reach it. Guns are weapons of potential death. An ignorant person with a gun in his/her hand is just as dangerous as a person having one with malice in his/her heart.

If you are ever faced with a gun, understand now that your life has just been weighed and measured. You are now worth the $400 dollars someone has paid for the firearm. That is all it takes to decide the path of your life.
Well put!!! :D

[ren28]

I agree. That was well written.

[SunWuKong]

not one belligerent comment so far!

i'm so proud of you guys i want to cry... :cry:

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by ren28@Nov 22 2002, 08:39 PM
I agree. That was well written.
I concur. That must be how they think in Canada, where there are 7 million guns in a nation of 30 million people and only 65 handgun murders a year. They must be doing something right.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Elizabeth A.@Nov 23 2002, 12:46 AM
I agree. Guns do suck. Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine"?
Maybe this was just my interpretation, but I thought that movie was talking more about how PEOPLE IN AMERICA are more the problem than the guns they have in their homes.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by shaka.brah@Nov 23 2002, 02:42 AM
I find it pretty amazing when people place blame on the gun, but not the person behind the gun .. When a drunk driver crashes his car and kills some innocent bystander, I NEVER hear anyone blame the beer or the car ...
Amen to that.

[kimchee63]

Originally posted by isyen@Nov 22 2002, 08:13 PM
<snip> It is understandable that fear drives people to want to protect themselves with a firearm. The argument is: if a common criminal has one, why shouldn¡¦t I have one for the protection of my family and myself?<snip>
Really, we need to think about this self defense argument. It appeals to fear and our more base instincts. And so much of what we Americans do *is* based on fear - buying insurance or guns or installing car alarms, for example - rather than on trust.

When an ordinary citizen (not a law enforcement professional) purchases a gun in the name of self protection, s/he embarks down the path of fear. Purchasing a firearm marks a subtle but important shift in one's relationship with the community, away from building bridges in the community to a world where it's every man for himself.

In FIST STICK KNIFE GUN, Geoffrey Canada points out that we human beings have not changed much, but the weapons at our disposal have. Killing someone with your fist, stick or knife is in many ways the ultimate interpersonal experience. You're right there, watching and listening to the poor sucker gasp, bleed and moan. Guns make killing easy and remote.

Imagine how different things would have been for that Japanese exchange student in Louisiana in the '80s, that was shot on Halloween night as he knocked on a stranger's door because he was lost. The man that killed him admitted that he shot the kid in part because he was Asian, and that he thought he was about to be robbed.

Just as MLK Jr refused to fight violence with violence and fear with fear, I will do the same. We need to work with our politicians and policy makers to build real communities based on mutual trust.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kimchee63@Nov 23 2002, 08:13 AM
Really, we need to think about this self defense argument. It appeals to fear and our more base instincts. And so much of what we Americans do *is* based on fear - buying insurance or guns or installing car alarms, for example - rather than on trust.

When an ordinary citizen (not a law enforcement professional) purchases a gun in the name of self protection, s/he embarks down the path of fear. Purchasing a firearm marks a subtle but important shift in one's relationship with the community, away from building bridges in the community to a world where it's every man for himself.

In FIST STICK KNIFE GUN, Geoffrey Canada points out that we human beings have not changed much, but the weapons at our disposal have. Killing someone with your fist, stick or knife is in many ways the ultimate interpersonal experience. You're right there, watching and listening to the poor sucker gasp, bleed and moan. Guns make killing easy and remote.

Imagine how different things would have been for that Japanese exchange student in Louisiana in the '80s, that was shot on Halloween night as he knocked on a stranger's door because he was lost. The man that killed him admitted that he shot the kid in part because he was Asian, and that he thought he was about to be robbed.

Just as MLK Jr refused to fight violence with violence and fear with fear, I will do the same. We need to work with our politicians and policy makers to build real communities based on mutual trust.
I'm sorry, but to any normal, sane, and mentally healthy person, killing somebody should in NO way be easy... no mATTER the weapon used. It's not about actually having PHYSICAL contact with the person you kill; WATCHING them die is certainly a horrible thing to go through as well.

And I agree that we shouldn't breed violence. But having guns around doesn't do that. Having criminals carrying guns around, having people misuse firearms, and having people BLAME guns does. Blaming the weapon instead of the one firing the weapon just makes people think they can get away with shit by turning the attention from the actual crime to the weapon used.

[Fireblade]

People will find ways to harm others. Be it harrassment, violence, or just petty arguing, it never stops. We can say that a ban on guns would get ppl to stop the killing, but then again we'd also have to outlaw and object that could be used to kill someone. Grosse Point Blank showed how a guy can die from a friggin' pen!!! I'm for gun laws, but I'm also for peace of mind. Keep the peace people.

[lethal]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Nov 23 2002, 03:16 AM
I'm sorry, but to any normal, sane, and mentally healthy person, killing somebody should in NO way be easy... no mATTER the weapon used. It's not about actually having PHYSICAL contact with the person you kill; WATCHING them die is certainly a horrible thing to go through as well.

And I agree that we shouldn't breed violence. But having guns around doesn't do that. Having criminals carrying guns around, having people misuse firearms, and having people BLAME guns does. Blaming the weapon instead of the one firing the weapon just makes people think they can get away with shit by turning the attention from the actual crime to the weapon used.
I don't think he meant to say that killing people with guns is easy, but rather it is easier to detach yourself emotionally while killing a person with a gun this it is while killing a person with a knife or stick or fist. In the former case, it takes a matter of seconds to fire a gun and have a bullet travel the distance to the target. One bullet can kill them. In the latter cases, the target must be in close proximity and it takes repeated strikes to kill a person.

Killing a person, any person, by any means should not be easy under any circumstances. But killing a person with a gun takes just one split second, just one thought, just one action. That has to be emotionally easier at the time than killing a person with an object that takes repeated strikes.

Note that the "at the time" part is important. The emotional aftereffects of killing a person, regardless of means, is likely similar.

[kimchee63]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Nov 23 2002, 12:16 AM
<snip> Blaming the weapon instead of the one firing the weapon just makes people think they can get away with shit by turning the attention from the actual crime to the weapon used <snip>
... And nuclear weapons don't kill people; people do ... :dance:

[loserbutt]

1. I express my distain for gun everywhere I go, on or away from computers

2. In my experience the people who are obssessed with guns do not have respect for life and feel a strange sort of power when they wield one. They also tend to be small little shits who otherwise are pathetic and rely on guns to make themselves feel big.

3. this is on a philosphical level

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 23 2002, 12:59 AM

Killing a person, any person, by any means should not be easy under any circumstances. But killing a person with a gun takes just one split second, just one thought, just one action. That has to be emotionally easier at the time than killing a person with an object that takes repeated strikes.

Note that the "at the time" part is important. The emotional aftereffects of killing a person, regardless of means, is likely similar.
I've dispatch many targets in combat.....e.g., using a knife to eliminate sentinels. I've also eliminate target at extremely close range w/ subguns.

It's don't find either method emotionally easier at all.
But you're correct regarding the aftereffects: it's the same

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 23 2002, 08:44 AM
1. I express my distain for gun everywhere I go, on or away from computers

2. In my experience the people who are obssessed with guns do not have respect for life and feel a strange sort of power when they wield one. They also tend to be small little shits who otherwise are pathetic and rely on guns to make themselves feel big.

3. this is on a philosphical level
1. I express my distain for gun everywhere I go, on or away from computers.
----------YOU have the right to do so------------------


2. In my experience the people who are obssessed with guns do not have respect for life and feel a strange sort of power when they wield one. They also tend to be small little shits who otherwise are pathetic and rely on guns to make themselves feel big.

-------------Right.................... :lol: Your thoughts are so One-dimensional..............I've employed the use of weapons to eliminated my marks as quickly as possible. Is it possible to eliminate my mark with a knive or my bare hands......You bet I can.........
Or how about a baseball bat, a fork, chopsticks, a pen, a pencil, a rock, a stylus (PDA), etc.....etc........... Pathetic-----nope........I have many professional friends(DDS,MD, ESQ) who own and shoot machine guns weekly or monthly. IT A HOBBY...They are already power-players in society......They derived their power from wielding a gun..........IT's a damn hobby.

3. this is on a philosphical level
-------If so, you have not taken over viewpoints into account.


Cheers,
:lol:

[loserbutt]

actually the philosphical level notion was to defuse anything about "guns preventing crime"

Secondly, while you could kill someone with a knife, baseball bat, etc, it is a lot harder to do so than with a gun, and also they do serve other non-violent purposes while with a gun you can only kill/maim people/animals or practice doing so.

lastly, what kind of doctor- who's job is to preserve life- would take enjoyment in firing a gun?

[ellsworth81]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 23 2002, 09:17 AM
actually the philosphical level notion was to defuse anything about "guns preventing crime"

Secondly, while you could kill someone with a knife, baseball bat, etc, it is a lot harder to do so than with a gun, and also they do serve other non-violent purposes while with a gun you can only kill/maim people/animals or practice doing so.

lastly, what kind of doctor- who's job is to preserve life- would take enjoyment in firing a gun?
guns are a power trip. it's a huge responsibility just to hold one. and that makes many of us feel "good".

and like he said, there is a hobby aspect to it. it's also a skill.

I think as long what someone is doing doesn't hurt anyone (shooting range, clay shooting, etc), then we can't really criticize.

Again, you need to look at the people who get their hands on these things.

And "enjoying" a gun doesn't mean that you don't any value for life. But if you like to go hunting, then I have to wonder ...

[hormiga]

There's a bumper sticker with the saying 'When guns are outlawed, only the facists will have guns.'

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 23 2002, 09:17 AM


lastly, what kind of doctor- who's job is to preserve life- would take enjoyment in firing a gun?
One can be healer and still enjoy target shooting.
It's a sport.....Not many people have the skills necessary to engaged targets at 500,700, 1200 meters. It's an art form........like archery....

What is wrong with shooting paper or steel targets?
The DDS, MD, ESQ, that I speak of shoot targets or the pure enjoyment of it. It's a hobby.
It not guns that killed, the people behind them. One member made an analogy between drunk driving. Would you blame the car or the person.

WHY DO YOU Associate guns with death? How about throwing knives? It's an art form.
If the people in society started to use knives as a primary weapon in murder, would you make the same claim: lastly, what kind of doctor--whose job is to preserve life---would take enjoyment in handling a knife.....Oh my gosh :D

YOu argument regarding guns and enjoyment is flaw.

For you to condemed the used of firearms , i.e., as a sport------it's an OLympic event----shows the depth of your thoughts. :P
But as with any good argument there is always a counter to that....That's what make America so great. You can to speak your mind.

Cheers,
:lol:

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by armycommando_turned_doctor@Nov 23 2002, 01:42 PM
But as with any good argument there is always a counter to that....That's what make America so great. You can to speak your mind.

Cheers,
:lol:
thank you.

[ren28]

There is a certain amount of objectivity and the ability to process logic that is needed here. When a person insists that guns are only meant to kill despite numerous reasons that show otherwise... it shows a lack of objectiveness and logic.

There is no changing peoples' minds when they cannot be objective. Some people have such insane fears that no amount of logic can change them. I almost feel sorry for them but ignorance is not an excuse.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by armycommando_turned_doctor@Nov 23 2002, 06:42 PM
.
If the people in society started to use knives as a primary weapon in murder, would you make the same claim: lastly, what kind of doctor--whose job is to preserve life---would take enjoyment in handling a knife.....Oh my gosh :D


i think stabbing IS the primary means of homicides in this country. :)

OMG YOU USE A SCALPEL?! DR. GIGGLES!!! :lol:

[deez nuts]

I know alot of MD's that go to the shooting range. They say it's cathartic in dealing with the bullshit of hospital bureaucracy, red tape, unexpected complications that come up during procedures, difficult patients, etc etc. Just cuz they shoot off a few rounds in the shooting range doesn't mean they'll go postal in the hospital or is a testimony of their medical prowess.

And besides there is a fair amount of MD's that were ex-military. Those that served the country and some have seen combat prior to going to medical school or becoming doctors in order pay their way through college and med school. And there are MD's that did service and gradually went to a military medical school or came from a military medical school.

But, I just don't see the correlation between guns, doctors and their performance. We're human too. I don't see how one's hobby has anything to do with it. Just cuz we heal people automatically excludes us from certain hobbies?

It's not like when we interviewed for our medical school and medical residency we were asked if we like to shoot off guns, and that automatically means rejection from the program. As a matter of fact, military service is actually looked at as a plus and a good thing rather than a negative to the admissions board.

Hell forget the scalpel and throwing knives. People are using hypodermic needles as weapons!

[amietron]

Originally posted by ren28@Nov 23 2002, 03:45 PM
There is no changing peoples' minds when they cannot be objective. Some people have such insane fears that no amount of logic can change them. I almost feel sorry for them but ignorance is not an excuse.
Yeah, I agree ren28. When discussing issues, often people are so emotionally attached to their views that they disable their abilities to think objectively, and it's my way and only my way.

I actually think it might be useful for a surgeon to have knowledge about guns. They're the ones having to do the "Where's Waldo?" type searching for bullets, when victims are rolled into the hospital.

[achtungbaby]

I'm not up to speed on current gun control laws, but I'll bet that most gun advocates are against waiting periods. Is this true? If so...what's the big deal? Personally, I like guns and don't think there's anything wrong with someone enjoying gun collecting or shooting as a hobby. But I also think that because of the enormous danger you can bring to those around you or even yourself, you should be required to either take a class to learn how to use it. Why the hell is it so difficult to get a driver's license but not a gun?

[ren28]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Nov 23 2002, 07:55 PM
I'm not up to speed on current gun control laws, but I'll bet that most gun advocates are against waiting periods. Is this true? If so...what's the big deal? Personally, I like guns and don't think there's anything wrong with someone enjoying gun collecting or shooting as a hobby. But I also think that because of the enormous danger you can bring to those around you or even yourself, you should be required to either take a class to learn how to use it. Why the hell is it so difficult to get a driver's license but not a gun?
I am for the waiting period. I was mad at first but I realized that someone could go buy a gun in the heat of the moment and kill someone. The "cooling off period" is good because it allows someone to literally cool off and think before they can use the gun. It's a hassle for "normal" people but I think the benefits might slightly outweigh the hassle.

It's not that easy to get a gun unless one does it illegally. Law-abiding people have more problems getting guns. They go through a background check, BFSC test (for handguns) and a waiting period in CA.

[Green_Circle]

Originally posted by amietron@Nov 23 2002, 03:37 AM
So, can I go? I wanna try shooting a machine gun. Would I have to get parental consent?

Do you ever go to the range to shoot clay disks? Or hunting?
Wish I could go also. It must be hella expensive shooting a machine gun. Ammo costs a lot and with an AK, I'm sure I could burn off a hundred bucks in 15 minutes! I don't like cheap reloads. What do you figure the cost of half decent ammo would be?

[LT25]

I've serverd in the military (part time and full time) for over 10 years. I've also worked in direct service with children ful time for over 2 years (and a lot more part time). I am personally comfortable with firearms and can weild one like it was an extension of myself. But i feel the same way about building things out of LEGOs and K'nex with "my kids." So I guess I'm a bit of a paradox.

But I am also experienced and educated enough to know that guns do not belong in the hands of children unsupervised. And while I would never allow "my kids" to pick up, much less fire a weapon, if I had children of my own and firearms (which I have neither), then I would not want them to be curious about them and find out what they are capable of the hard way. I have friends who own firearms and take their kids shooting and hunting with them. Knowledge is power and if the children know how to handle a firearm safely, then they are theoretically less likely to go snooping for "Daddy's guns" when Dad's not home. Because they respect firearms, they don't abuse. Kind of like driving a car.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by LT25@Nov 24 2002, 09:38 AM


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
Beautiful!!!!!!!! :D

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by Green_Circle@Nov 24 2002, 09:14 AM
Wish I could go also. It must be hella expensive shooting a machine gun. Ammo costs a lot and with an AK, I'm sure I could burn off a hundred bucks in 15 minutes! I don't like cheap reloads. What do you figure the cost of half decent ammo would be?
Yup.........It's expensive.

I shoot WOLF ammo through the AK. It's about .11 a round. It is not the ammo, because the case is metal vs. brass. But shooting it through the AK is fine....AKs are pieces of crap--the construction, but very robust and reliable.

For the Mp5, I shoot Special k subsonic rounds(.19 a round) w/ the aid of a suppressor......It's Hollywood quiet---phut...phut...phut...

For M-4 carbine, I shoot IMI ammo (.13 a round). For stealth application, I shoot Engel subsonic rounds w/the aid of a suppressor------It's Hollywood quiet..Phut.......Phut.......

For the SAW, I also shoot IMI ammo

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by amietron@Nov 22 2002, 07:37 PM
So, can I go? I wanna try shooting a machine gun. Would I have to get parental consent?

Do you ever go to the range to shoot clay disks? Or hunting?
Sure you can go.
Yes, it you're under 18. It's on private property, so as long as daddy dearest says it okay..then it's okay w/ me. :D

I shoot clay discs, stationary targets, & mobile targts.
I dont hunt.

[mike4bmp]

Army Commando.....
Were you ever stationed at Fort Lewis?
Or do we even have an SF group here?
I was a 31U stationed at Fort Eustis.....had thoughts of going to Ranger school....but changed my mind and decided to go to Med school myself......Sorry I guess this is not on the topic.....but I think guns are ok AS LONG as those who own them are responsible.....
I think you only get into trouble with guns if you go looking for trouble.....guys who pack them (and get a big ego) and want to brandish them after picking a fight with someone....you know just stupid stuff..... :pissed:
Peace....

[Arex]

My personal take on guns is this (I've shared some of these thoughts before so I apologize if I sound repetitive): I think guns are horrible things and ought to be banned in most forms, but I'm nevertheless fascinated with them and thoroughly enjoy going to the range (or mountains) to shoot inanimate objects.

I can appreciate the "sport" aspect of gun ownership, and I can also appreciate the desire for adequate self defense, but I personally don't think the power to take life with the simple pulling of a trigger is something that should necessarily be in the hands of the masses. The statistics on gun related deaths in this country versus all other countries, I think, is all the support I need to reasonably hold this belief. I understand that the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens and that most criminals do not give a rat's ass about gun control laws, but the fact that guns are so readily available through legal channels means that it's all that much easier for those few "evil-doers" to obtain guns illegally on the secondary market.

This is an instance where I think the amount of harm that comes from the abuse/misuse of something far outweighs the benefit that comes from that same thing's proper, legal use. The costs of gun abuse to society far outweigh the small benefit that recreational and self-defense users derive. As an extreme example, I think a lot of people (myself included) would have a blast playing with RPGs or Stinger missiles or other similar items. And I believe that most would use them in a legal manner (e.g., at designated zones). But I think it would be absolutely ridiculous if they were made available to the public, even with extensive training/licensing requirements and thorough background checks, simply due to the fact that they could and eventually would fall into the wrong hands.

With guns, the problem is that they're already available and in circulation and it's difficult to tell law abiding people to surrender them, even if it ultimately is for the common good. It is an unfortunate fact that if all the law abiding citizens give up their guns, only criminals will have them. But, it's also a fact that if the source of guns dries up, eventually the number of guns in criminals' hands will diminish as well.

That being said, as long as guns are legal, I'm going to enjoy gun ownership. I truly believe that there's nothing inherently wrong with those that own and enjoy guns in a safe, responsible, and legal manner. But I think it's also important to acknowledge the big picture.

Alex

[loserbutt]

I've always been perplexed by the NRA fighting any form of gun regulation. For instance, a few years ago a Pakistani man bought an AK-47 from a gun shop and gunned down 2 fbi agents. The gunman was recently executed, but what perplexes me is how he was able obtain that weapon, a weapon that is of no use for hunting or the such. I really think that all that Americans need are hunting rifles and handguns, nothing more. We surely don't need automatics. And we really don't need semi-automatics. If you miss the deer after the first shot you don't deserve to get it. The primary use of guns in self-defense is a deterrent, just pointing the gun at someone is enough. Semi-automatics seem good only in inner city gang battles.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 08:28 PM
I've always been perplexed by the NRA fighting any form of gun regulation. For instance, a few years ago a Pakistani man bought an AK-47 from a gun shop and gunned down 2 fbi agents. The gunman was recently executed, but what perplexes me is how he was able obtain that weapon, a weapon that is of no use for hunting or the such. I really think that all that Americans need are hunting rifles and handguns, nothing more. We surely don't need automatics. And we really don't need semi-automatics. If you miss the deer after the first shot you don't deserve to get it. The primary use of guns in self-defense is a deterrent, just pointing the gun at someone is enough. Semi-automatics seem good only in inner city gang battles.
In Cali, at least, I don't think you're allowed to get weapons like that. But if you want it bad enough, it probably wouldn't be much of a problem. Laws about shit like that don't necessarily matter, 'cuz if you want something bad enough, you can get it.

[loserbutt]

well then they should be forced to obtain the weapon illegally

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 08:32 PM
well then they should be forced to obtain the weapon illegally
Didn't you JUST say that getting guns like that shouldn't be allowed?!? I'm so confused.


Edit: Okay, I see. NM, I thought you said they SHOULDN'T be forced to get them illegally. Okay, then. So.. umm... what's the problem?

[loserbutt]

they should not be allowed. but then your argument is that the law will be circumvented anyways, so why bother. well I say that assault weapons should not be allowed to be obtained legally.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 08:36 PM
they should not be allowed. but then your argument is that the law will be circumvented anyways, so why bother. well I say that assault weapons should not be allowed to be obtained legally.
I agree with you. I wish it was IMPOSSIBLE to obtain them illegally, but that'll never happen. At least when they're illegal, somebody can get in trouble for just HAVING one, let alone using it.

[wylin]

double speak, in california u can get semiautomatic hand guns w/ 10 round clips and some vintage and pre-2001 domestically made weapons. but no weapons with a pistol grip that use a front clip (m16 style). There are some exceptions like M1 carbines and M1 garand semiautomatic weapons (which have legitiamate and historical value). Semi-automatic weapons are great for engaging varmits like coyotes and rabits to protect agricultural resources and really 1 hit from most semi automatics isnt gonna kill you it needs to hit multiple times. 5.56mm (.223) the common nato use assualt riffle round is not much bigger then a bird killing .22 bolt action riffle, they depends on volume of fire to damage the enemy.

Also if i wanted to get a gun like that illegally that just opens up a whole new black market why get semi automatics? why not M16 or M4 carbines stolen off marine bases, how bout grenade launchers, and LAW/ RPGanti tank/ bunker weapons (used in one drive by in new orleans). lets just armor ourselves up and do like the hollywood bank shooting guyz and get osama bin ladin class AKM's and AK-74's too why not, if ur gonna break the law ur gonna go balls out. Forexample in 1999 a friend of mine obtained an awesome illegal weapon an M16 and its Grenade launcer attachment and 3 live grenades he got this to defend his car shop from would be theieves who had been going to carshops and murdering and robbing the employee's... if ur gonna break the law and create an illegal weapons trade expect people just to go balls out when they get weapons.

i'd personally get an HK G36, HK G3a3 w/ scope, a Soviet PKM machine gun, a Socom/ HK USP w/ suppressor and laser sight, a FAMAS, HK MP5s silenced version, glock 21 w/ 17 round clips, and Styer AUG assualt riffle w/ night vision scope, an RPG w/ HEAT and Frag shell, and a HK MG3 (mg 42 revised) machine gun.

[wylin]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Nov 26 2002, 12:37 PM
I agree with you. I wish it was IMPOSSIBLE to obtain them illegally, but that'll never happen. At least when they're illegal, somebody can get in trouble for just HAVING one, let alone using it.
i'd rather have a weapons charge then be dead when sum crook invades my house. my dad thinks that too and so do alota americans.

[loserbutt]

if you're a paranoid one...

[wylin]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 01:05 PM
if you're a paranoid one...
sorry not all of us live in suburban bliss i have at times lived ina urban nightmare and sprawl and yes there are home invasion robberies in my area...one happened down the street and the owner was assualted and if not for a neighbor calling the cops she would have sexually assualted too. she had her jewlrey taken and also her cash and credit cards. this happened at about 2pm PST.

[loserbutt]

ever wonder why police in inner cities run programs such as TOYS FOR GUNS?

[ism]

I find it funny the ACLU defends every Amendment except the 2nd. Of course, the largest lobby already does that, but the ACLU doesn't even seem to offer a position. I understand defending the 2nd Amendment is considered a right-wing stance and defending the rest is left-wing, and the ACLU doesn't want to alienate its source of funding, but as a civil libertarian I find it hypocritical.

I read the Constitution mostly as an Originalist, and I think the Founding Fathers really intended citizens to have arms in the event a revolt was neccessary. Considering they were recently under tyrannical rule, it could be viewed as an overreaction, but in those times the stability of the country was in doubt. These days, with a satiated large middle class unlikely to revolt, the need for a "well-regulated militia" is decreasing. The problem, however, is if the Amendment is to be repealed, that puts the others in jeopardy. Yes, Amendments have been repealed before, but not any in the Bill of Rights. The best I would hope for is an interpretation of what kinds of arms the Founding Fathers would like citizens to have. Certainly they never imagined machine guns, or even nuclear warfare. It is doubtful they would have allowed citizens to have weapons of mass destruction, but would they have allowed assault weapons? I honestly do not know the answer to that.

However, I value all of my rights, even though I may not use them, since they all go together. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is there and by principle I have to defend it.

[loserbutt]

the 2nd is also the most murky of amendments, maintinance of a well-armed militia? why not just unabashedly go out and say that the right to bear arms will not be infringed? why insert the well-armed militia clause? well-armed militia could very well be national guard units.. and besides, I'm not talking about guns being completely banned... just getting rid of military style ones from civilian usage

[angel nympho]

Wasn't the 2nd amendement created during a time when the British were putting their soldiers into people's homes?

... I thought that was why it was included in the Constitution... so that Colonists could stand up to the British. *Shrug* I could be wrong.

[537]

It is my opinion that guns do not suck. Nor do gun afficionados.

What does suck, however, are the select few that choose to abuse ownership/possession of such a weapon to cause harm.

As with anything, the few ruin the fun of the many.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[loserbutt]

actually I believe it is the 3rd amendment that has the provision against quarting soldiers in people's homes.

and gun nuts do suck because an obsession with an instrument of death- that is what guns are for after all- is just wrong

[wylin]

obviously losserbutt's mind wont be changed by he can be unarmed when attack by an homeinvasion robber if he wants. thats his choice to live that way and die that way. in our society of haves and have nots i rather have the option of some sort of protection then have my rights be stripped away by sum dogmatic liberal gun haters. dogma people is what makes discussions become flame wars everyone talks like a broken record of dogma and just believes what sumone else has said or wrote. bah dogma

[Arex]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 02:32 PM
actually I believe it is the 3rd amendment that has the provision against quarting soldiers in people's homes.

and gun nuts do suck because an obsession with an instrument of death- that is what guns are for after all- is just wrong
In the hunting thread, you indicate that you have no problem with hunting and see it as a legitimate sport. But isn't hunting itself simply making a sport out of death? People use animal population control as a justification for hunting, but that's not why people hunt. They hunt because they derive pleasure and enjoyment from tracking, stalking and eventually killing the animal. I'd argue that hunting and death are more intertwined than guns and death because you cannot hunt without killing (or at least attempting to do so) whereas you can own and use a gun without killing. Granted, the primary purpose of firearms is to kill, but that's not all people use 'em for. So wouldn't it be right to say that an obsession with hunting is an obsession with death moreso than an obsession with guns is? Why then should hunting be more acceptable, or less wrong, than an interest in guns, especially when most people hunt with guns?

Alex

[wylin]

all i know for real i want 1 good bolt action riffle modern like a SIG SSG3000 or Steyr Scout, 1 good vintage bold action riffle like a G98 or KAR98 w/o scope, 1 good .45 cal pistol like a USP or glock 21, 1 good 9mm pistol like a Walter P99 or a SIG forgot model, 1 good close combat weapon like an M1 carbine semi auto riffle (vintage), 1 good assualt riffle like an HK G3

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 10:32 PM
actually I believe it is the 3rd amendment that has the provision against quarting soldiers in people's homes.

and gun nuts do suck because an obsession with an instrument of death- that is what guns are for after all- is just wrong
Which amendement is which? The right to bear arms, I thought was created in a time when people HAD to carry weapons to protect themselves from the big bad British. And hey, I was posting to defend you. But oh well.

Gun nuts, typically, aren't obsessed with an instrument of death. They're usually not even obsessed. Just because something CAN be used for that purpose doesn't mean that anybody who is interested in that thing WILL and WANTS to use it for that purpose. I'm obsessed with weird things, too. I'm a camera nut. Just 'cuz cameras are the tool of choice for those who wanna take gross voyeuristic pictures of their neighbors or make porno movies, doesn't mean I'm some creepy peeper wanting to take porno pics of naked ladies.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 10:14 PM
the 2nd is also the most murky of amendments, maintinance of a well-armed militia? why not just unabashedly go out and say that the right to bear arms will not be infringed? why insert the well-armed militia clause? well-armed militia could very well be national guard units.. and besides, I'm not talking about guns being completely banned... just getting rid of military style ones from civilian usage
Getting rid of military style weaponry for civilians, I believe, in a lot of places, is already in effect.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by Arex@Nov 26 2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 02:32 PM
actually I believe it is the 3rd amendment that has the provision against quarting soldiers in people's homes.

and gun nuts do suck because an obsession with an instrument of death- that is what guns are for after all- is just wrong
In the hunting thread, you indicate that you have no problem with hunting and see it as a legitimate sport. But isn't hunting itself simply making a sport out of death? People use animal population control as a justification for hunting, but that's not why people hunt. They hunt because they derive pleasure and enjoyment from tracking, stalking and eventually killing the animal. I'd argue that hunting and death are more intertwined than guns and death because you cannot hunt without killing (or at least attempting to do so) whereas you can own and use a gun without killing. Granted, the primary purpose of firearms is to kill, but that's not all people use 'em for. So wouldn't it be right to say that an obsession with hunting is an obsession with death moreso than an obsession with guns is? Why then should hunting be more acceptable, or less wrong, than an interest in guns, especially when most people hunt with guns?

Alex
thx for pting that out, Alex. come to think of it, LB said it would be legit to use bow and arrow to hunt. Bow and arrow are NOT instruments of death? Tell that to Achilles.

[ism]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Nov 26 2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 26 2002, 10:32 PM
actually I believe it is the 3rd amendment that has the provision against quarting soldiers in people's homes.

Which amendement is which? The right to bear arms, I thought was created in a time when people HAD to carry weapons to protect themselves from the big bad British. And hey, I was posting to defend you. But oh well.
Handy dandy quick guide to your Bill of Rights (unless you're not USian):

1: Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly, Petition
2: to Bear Arms
3: Quartering of Troops
4: Search and Seizure
5: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process
6: Jury Trial, Right to Counsel
7: Common Law Suits - Jury Trial
8: Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel & Unusual Punishment
9: Non-Enumerated Rights (Right to Privacy but that is more grounded in the 14th)
10: Rights Reserved to States

[iris]

A.N., the second amendment is the Right to Bear Arms [re: militia]. It was created in a time when all citizens were in the militia and all states had their own army. These men were ¡§minute men¡¨ to be called into battle at any time. Every male citizen of the United States was in a military organization and as a result, they had to outfit themselves with weapons. It is debatable whether the second amendment is applicable to the citizens of the United States who are no longer automatically part of a military force. This is the reason why the ACLU chooses to take no stance on issues regarding the second amendment. Laws are opened to interpretation, thus the reason we have attorneys and courts. In the case of the second amendment, most justices agree that it refers to an earlier century in revolution, but to repeal the bill would place the entire constitution in jeopardy.

In these times it is rare that we fight against another nation. Instead, we fight against other citizens. While having a gun may be preferred and understandable, I am of the mind that advanced forms of weaponry (automatics & semi-automatics) should be banned. In court, you are judged on how many times you fired a gun to protect yourself and others. One bullet, if shot right, is all it takes to kill a man or stop him in his tracks. It is called malicious intent if you shoot off an unreasonable amount of ammo. There is no need to possess an enhanced version of a gun. Think for one moment: if an intruder breaks into your home, how many times are you going to shoot this trespasser? Pulling the trigger is hard enough, but I doubt anyone would empty a clip into the burglar. Humanity refers to humans for a reason.

Many people have advanced forms of guns for their own pleasure, to take to the shooting range, as momentos of time served in service, or for other reasons. Most think that there is no danger in it because they would not be irresponsible in its use. Yes, you might be conscientious, but there are many people in this world who are not. While you are being responsible and going to the shooting range to learn about your weapon and to appreciate its power, the person next to you at the range is thinking about how much he hates his boss. Not all people are as principled as you think yourself to be.

While it is comprehensible that some people would ascribe to the thought that. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people,¡¨ I would beg to differ. To declare such a statement absolves guns of all responsibility. It takes a combination of both to do the deed. Though a malevolent person may try to kill another with his bare hands, his chances of succeeding are far higher with a gun. Guns increase the probability of death, therefore, they should carry some responsibility of the crime.

Because we live in a world of both intelligent and uninformed people, gun control and laws against advance forms of weaponry are safeguards for the citizens of the United States against ignorant people who pack guns. Our forefathers certainly didn't imagine a world of AK-47s when they wrote the constitution.

[angel nympho]

That's what I thought... that the 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. That's what I was saying up there... so.. umm... I still stand behind what I said before... that the right to bear arms was more necessary in the time the Constitution was created than it is now.

[Arex]

isyen: Very well said. But I would argue that there is really no reason that the public should have access to any kind of guns, advanced or otherwise. Any type of gun in the wrong hands has the ability to inflict more damage to society than society benefits from the public having access to guns.

Alex

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Arex@Nov 27 2002, 08:16 PM
isyen: Very well said. But I would argue that there is really no reason that the public should have access to any kind of guns, advanced or otherwise. Any type of gun in the wrong hands has the ability to inflict more damage to society than society benefits from the public having access to guns.
yes, but when the gun gets into those wrong hands (and it will get into those wrong hands ... we're talking about the same government which is running the war on drugs here), who's gonna stop the damage it can do? Not the police, who can't be everywhere at once. Private citizens stop crime by using or merely brandishing guns. This is why states which issue concealed-carry permits and the like have low crime rates while Washington DC is a slaughterhouse (at least for the poor - the elites of course can afford houses in gated communities with private security). Take away guns from poor people in underpoliced communities where cops are afraid to tread, and basically it's open season on their houses and their persons.

Further, we may like to believe we no longer live in an era where guns are necessary to defend ourselves against government encroachments on our liberty, but recall: Hitler was given power and then given absolute power by a democratic system in a time of crisis. He then proceeded to disarm certain segments of the German population. When the SS came for them to pack them into boxcars and ship them off to death camps, they were defenseless. 6 million of them died as a result.

[wylin]

Originally posted by isyen@Nov 26 2002, 10:55 PM
A.N., the second amendment is the Right to Bear Arms [re: militia]. It was created in a time when all citizens were in the militia and all states had their own army. These men were ¡§minute men¡¨ to be called into battle at any time. Every male citizen of the United States was in a military organization and as a result, they had to outfit themselves with weapons. It is debatable whether the second amendment is applicable to the citizens of the United States who are no longer automatically part of a military force. This is the reason why the ACLU chooses to take no stance on issues regarding the second amendment. Laws are opened to interpretation, thus the reason we have attorneys and courts. In the case of the second amendment, most justices agree that it refers to an earlier century in revolution, but to repeal the bill would place the entire constitution in jeopardy.

In these times it is rare that we fight against another nation. Instead, we fight against other citizens. While having a gun may be preferred and understandable, I am of the mind that advanced forms of weaponry (automatics & semi-automatics) should be banned. In court, you are judged on how many times you fired a gun to protect yourself and others. One bullet, if shot right, is all it takes to kill a man or stop him in his tracks. It is called malicious intent if you shoot off an unreasonable amount of ammo. There is no need to possess an enhanced version of a gun. Think for one moment: if an intruder breaks into your home, how many times are you going to shoot this trespasser? Pulling the trigger is hard enough, but I doubt anyone would empty a clip into the burglar. Humanity refers to humans for a reason.

Many people have advanced forms of guns for their own pleasure, to take to the shooting range, as momentos of time served in service, or for other reasons. Most think that there is no danger in it because they would not be irresponsible in its use. Yes, you might be conscientious, but there are many people in this world who are not. While you are being responsible and going to the shooting range to learn about your weapon and to appreciate its power, the person next to you at the range is thinking about how much he hates his boss. Not all people are as principled as you think yourself to be.

While it is comprehensible that some people would ascribe to the thought that. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people,¡¨ I would beg to differ. To declare such a statement absolves guns of all responsibility. It takes a combination of both to do the deed. Though a malevolent person may try to kill another with his bare hands, his chances of succeeding are far higher with a gun. Guns increase the probability of death, therefore, they should carry some responsibility of the crime.

Because we live in a world of both intelligent and uninformed people, gun control and laws against advance forms of weaponry are safeguards for the citizens of the United States against ignorant people who pack guns. Our forefathers certainly didn't imagine a world of AK-47s when they wrote the constitution.
the problem iysen is that "advanced forms" of weapons are commonly availible and are already in the hands of gun owners, i think if u lived in cali currently u'd see how convoluted california gun laws are and how they have made bans RETROACTIVE and law abiding citzens including some police offcers are going to jail for just owning some semi automatic weapons. Also ur forgetting the fact most pistols are semi-automatic civillian or police/ military you have 50 million of those to deal with, its just not possible to recal that many weapons especially since only a few states have registration for pistol laws. what i think is a better solution is balistic fingerprinting that they talked about during the DC sniper cases that every single weapon is ballistically printed and that its unique barrel grove signature registered and make this retroactive but then bar all other anti assualt weapon gun laws and clip laws.

secondly regarding home invasion robberies/ burgluries most people regardless of weapon will empty a clip onto the assialant because they feel paniced firing one shot basically means u sniped him and waited and wanted to kill him. Also i rather have the ability to fire bursts at most drugged or crazed assialants where a single 9mm or .45 cal shell will not even knock them down. Advanced weapons also is a misnomer semi automatic pistols date back to early 1900's w/ john brownings Colt .45 and the toggle action Luger 9mm pistol and semiauto riffles to the 1930's and assualt riffles trace their lienage from the WW1 BAR squad weapon (usa) and German MP44/ Stg44 riffle (ak47 is decended directly from the "stug"). these weapons and even todays mostly 1960's technology based AR15 clas weapons availible for sale are neiter new technology or all that accurate. Advanced u must be thinking of the plastic G36 riffle or the OCIW future combat assualt riffle w/ 5.56 ammo and air burst grenade launcher and laser and night vision sights...or the polymer glock and walker p99. really gun technology since the 60's hasnt advanced much and if u really fired one of these weapons versus squacked about how powerful and dangerous they are u'd realise majority of them arent any more dangerous (most likely less) than an old 7.92 mauser bolt action riffle cept the WW1/WW2 mauser riffle shells go through walls ands cars versus the 5.56 shell that get deflected by leaves or branchs and dont go through most cars or thick walls.

like i said if it was my house i'd prefer an AR15 to a pistol because if sum bastards coming to hurt me or my family i want the mofo dead for sure (especially since criminals sue if injured). plus if u look at the laws ur proposing then u get an AUSTRALIA situation where crime has skyrocketed and only the criminals have semiauto and everyones left w/ old 1 shot weapons and there has been a marked increase in home invasion and kidnapings...go look it up i saw that on 20/20 like 1 yr ago or so. Australia has gone to hell cuz no weapons. Or a counter example there is a town in texas where crime was rampant and the town legislated everyone to own a gun and crime dropped dramatically. If everyones armed to the teeth the incentive and knowledge a criminal might have to try to overwhelm u w/ force is dimiished. theirs lotsa evidence like that and im dam glad my dad when i was a child being the consumate gun nut would always come back and forth w/ weapons from the range and that our house is one of the few in the neighborhood thats ever been robbed. :)

[iris]

Wylin, actually I did live in California :P until I went to college so I am familiar with the gun laws, but probably not so much as you, so feel free to inform me if I inadvertantly make a mistake in this thread. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe California just announced a decrease in crimes for the third year in a row. Of course, this is not solely due to stricter gun laws; the three strikes law also came into affect at this point, but three strikes include unlawful possession of firearms.

I understand that it is unreasonable to expect automatic weapons be eliminated from the home due to their prevalence. My suggestion is that if they were made illegal, the consequences of using one would also be greater because there really is no need to use them. I hate to be contrary, but your statistics are wrong on how many times a person fires at an intruder. The average number is One. I was a legal researcher for the ACLU and though we take no position on gun issues, we do follow them quite closely. Although a person being robbed feels adreneline and panick, the inborn ethics of thou shall not kill usually holds back an average citizen from going on a rampage and emptying a clip into a burgler.

If we look toward other nations with strict gun laws such as France, Canada, and England, you'll notice that their murder death rates as well as home robbery invasions are lower than those in the United States. Though the statistics are not completely due to stringent gun control, there is something to be said about the way they're going about it. I am not sure about Australia, but I'll take a look. I wonder why their crimes have increased? However, the number of nations with strict gun control and decreasing rates of criminal activity outnumber those with strict gun control and rising criminal activity.

Because guns are acknowledged as legal, it is your right to own what you want. The problem is, not everyone is as moral as you or as responsible. :unsure:

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by isyen@Nov 27 2002, 09:15 AM
The problem is, not everyone is as moral as you or as responsible. :unsure:
Same reason why I'm against legalizing drugs: too many stupid people to ruin it for the rest of us. It won't stop me from owning a gun, but I wouldn't encourage it. Hypocritical? Sure.

[wylin]

best place to look up cali's convoluted gun laws i'd link u if it let me (database is dynamic so it wont)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/index.html


bout the home invasions,i got that off work (i work for a police dept as a consultant), i might have mistaken that with the idealogy that most people panic and ussually the aspect of emptying the clip shows panic and the advent of being attacked.

the reason AU has such a problem w/ crime is that ordinary citzens were called upon to turn in their weapons and most complied except criminals. AU is used as an example often by the NRA of gun control gone wrong. Im not advocating south african weapons laws where if u got the money u can have AP mines and flame throwers and RPG rocket weapons. Im just saying stuff is fine the way it was in the 80;s before the anti assualt weapons movement began. and that really the decrease in crime in cal is a statistic it doesnt recoginize that crime dropped because of 9/11 feelings, that police depts here have had huge technological and tactical changes, poice have new task forces and community based policing and education programs and that the overall attitude of cops has changed toward the public. 3 strikes is interesting in that the 3rd strike really can be anything even certain misdomenor traffic citations (reckless driving/ speed contest), petty larceny, petty theft, or GTA...that 3rd strike that can cost ur life has been making criminals alot more desperate and in police orginizations their starting to see the desperation of criminals who rather try to run or fight then be locked up for life. im not sure if i agrree w/ that form of mandatory sentecing but i agree w/ mandatory sentences of sexual crimes and crimes against children.

nehows :P

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by isyen@Nov 28 2002, 01:15 AM
If we look toward other nations with strict gun laws such as France, Canada, and England, you'll notice that their murder death rates as well as home robbery invasions are lower than those in the United States.
Since 1829, the British police have never had to carry sidearms. Now, 5 years into the ban on personal gun ownership, they've been forced to begin. Armed robberies in Britain are skyrocketing - see for example this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/03/nmug103.xml) article from the Telegraph. Just as predicted, when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns, and they will begin to terrorize the disarmed populace.

Burglaries (am I using the wrong term here? I'm hoping to refer to the crime of entering a home when the owner is not present - so much for all that expensive education :P ) in Britain have also increased under gun control policies. In America, the breaking and entering rate is fairly high, but a criminal will rarely enter a dwelling where the owner is present, simply because he has no guarantee he won't be greeted with a bullet to the head. In Britain, criminals practically have that guarantee, so they attack without fear.

[Arex]

Yes, the fact that guns are already in circulation does make an across-the-board retroactive ban on guns kind of problematic. Perhaps a ban in phases would provide better results...

I would still argue that even with an overall ban enacted immediately, society would benefit overall, even if a certain segment of the population was permitted to run amock for a little while. The overall number of guns in the hands of most criminals would eventually fall as some percentage of illicit firearms used in the commission of crimes would come off the street each year after the ban. Since guns wouldn't be legally available anywhere, there would be difficulties in replacing the firearms to the streets. Of course, this is assuming that most criminals don't obtain their guns from international gun smugglers or dirty cops. Other would-be gun users would be deterred from having a gun simply because of the criminal penalties associated with gun possession. Let's not forget that not all murders are committed by career criminals--sometimes people just get mad. And then there's the supply effect: as the supply of guns is stemmed, the price goes up. Eventually what we'd see is that guns would be left in the hands of the worst of the worst criminal offenders. But these people will always have guns--it's inevitable. But this is still fine because that's how it is in countries with super strict gun control laws and they still seem to be doing relatively okay in terms of gun related homicides.

It seems to me that there may be a trade off in the types of crimes that you see. Perhaps burglaries will increase because the public is disarmed. But I can guarantee you that the number of gun-related deaths will decrease as well. Personally, I think this is a fair trade off: property for lives. Many of you will probably disagree.

I really have no numbers to prove this, just what I believe to be common sense. Of course, common sense often leads me astray so I'm sure there are reasonable argument to the contrary.=)

As for the possibility of a government takeover and enactment of policies similar to that of the Nazi's, anything's possible. In this post 9/11 climate, I'd say that possibility is more real than it's ever been...but that still doesn't mean that it's a likely possibliity. The fact is, if the govt. wanted to wage war against its own people and beat us into submission, it could do so whether we, the public, were armed or not. Granted, they'd sustain a helluva lot more casualties trying so long as we had guns, but there's really not much that the majority of the population could do against the government's artillery, tanks, helicopters, and planes. I personally don't think this is all that valid an argument in favor of gun possession. But that's me.

Alex

[wylin]

gun related deaths by accident are great i praise them, they are a form of darwinism on our feeble minded children and adults. too bad glad their not in the gene pool.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 27 2002, 07:39 PM
gun related deaths by accident are great i praise them, they are a form of darwinism on our feeble minded children and adults. too bad glad their not in the gene pool.
But what if a "feeble-minded" kid has a genius friend, and the dumbass knows where his dad's gun is and plays w/ it, accidentally shooting his genius friend. then we're weeding out the good ppl.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Nov 27 2002, 02:46 PM
But what if a "feeble-minded" kid has a genius friend, and the dumbass knows where his dad's gun is and plays w/ it, accidentally shooting his genius friend. then we're weeding out the good ppl.
Beat that feeble minded child down, for messing up the natural order of things! It should even us out and put us back at square one. :ph34r:

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 26 2002, 12:44 PM
Semi-automatic weapons are great for engaging varmits like coyotes and rabits to protect agricultural resources and really 1 hit from most semi automatics isnt gonna kill you it needs to hit multiple times. 5.56mm (.223) the common nato use assualt riffle round is not much bigger then a bird killing .22 bolt action riffle, they depends on volume of fire to damage the enemy.



a Socom/ HK USP w/ suppressor and laser sight, a FAMAS, HK MP5s silenced version, glock 21 w/ 17 round clips, and Styer AUG assualt riffle w/ night vision scope, an RPG w/ HEAT and Frag shell, and a HK MG3 (mg 42 revised) machine gun.
Semi-automatic weapons are great for engaging varmits like coyotes and rabits to protect agricultural resources and really 1 hit from most semi automatics isnt gonna kill you it needs to hit multiple times. 5.56mm (.223) the common nato use assualt riffle round is not much bigger then a bird killing .22 bolt action riffle, they depends on volume of fire to damage the enemy.

Correct........In combat, I always tried to place 2 shots in the chest and 1 shot in the head. There is a possibility(semi-small) that the target can squeeze one burst before collasping.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a sidearm, I too prefer the MK23 Socom pistol w/LAM and suppressor--see Avatar.

For close quarters, MP5SD

For normal engagment (usually less than 300 meters), I prefer the M-4 Carbine w/ M203

For normal sniping, I prefer the Knights SAR25. You are able to engage multiple target vs the M24. M24 is effective for one-shot scenario and is a little more accurate(just a little) than the SAR25

For extreme distance sniping the Barrett .50 will do the trick.

AUG and FAMAS looks unique, but doesn't perform well in comparison to other weapon.

[wylin]

have u had the chance to fire a G36 or G36E ? i really heard good things about those riffles and i mean if i had the means or could doit legally i'd like to own one. Maybe im just basing my HK whorism off how much i love HK G3 riffles.

whats a Knights SAR25 pix?

[Commando_turned_MD]

I've fired the HK G36K during a demo by HK for USSOCOM. It is an impressive rifle. I'm also a fan of HK.


Knights SR 25 is a M-16 on steriods. Just picture an M-16 chamber in the 7.62(.308).

[iris]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Nov 27 2002, 07:56 PM
Beat that feeble minded child down, for messing up the natural order of things! It should even us out and put us back at square one. :ph34r:
You silly boys! :lol:


Anyhow, just to clear up a point. The three year decrease in CA includes two years prior to 9/11 (since we can't count 2002 yet). I brought up those last 3 years because the decrease has been greatest, but CA gun-related crimes and deaths have decreased since 1991 when stringent gun laws were brought into affect. :rolleyes:

[ren28]

Originally posted by iris@Nov 27 2002, 09:15 AM
Wylin, actually I did live in California :P until I went to college so I am familiar with the gun laws, but probably not so much as you, so feel free to inform me if I inadvertantly make a mistake in this thread. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe California just announced a decrease in crimes for the third year in a row. Of course, this is not solely due to stricter gun laws; the three strikes law also came into affect at this point, but three strikes include unlawful possession of firearms.

I understand that it is unreasonable to expect automatic weapons be eliminated from the home due to their prevalence. My suggestion is that if they were made illegal, the consequences of using one would also be greater because there really is no need to use them. I hate to be contrary, but your statistics are wrong on how many times a person fires at an intruder. The average number is One. I was a legal researcher for the ACLU and though we take no position on gun issues, we do follow them quite closely. Although a person being robbed feels adreneline and panick, the inborn ethics of thou shall not kill usually holds back an average citizen from going on a rampage and emptying a clip into a burgler.

If we look toward other nations with strict gun laws such as France, Canada, and England, you'll notice that their murder death rates as well as home robbery invasions are lower than those in the United States. Though the statistics are not completely due to stringent gun control, there is something to be said about the way they're going about it. I am not sure about Australia, but I'll take a look. I wonder why their crimes have increased? However, the number of nations with strict gun control and decreasing rates of criminal activity outnumber those with strict gun control and rising criminal activity.

Because guns are acknowledged as legal, it is your right to own what you want. The problem is, not everyone is as moral as you or as responsible. :unsure:
Three strikes law is crap. It put people in jail that don't need to be there. It made the jail system even worse. If you look at how many people with new charges that come from actual "unlawful pessession of firearms," you would see that it has little effect (5.12% which was 373 cases). That is nothing compared to the harm that it has done. So many minor offenders are going to jail that the walls can't even hold all the criminals. As a result, the major offenders with less than 3 strikes get to walk. I'd say to KEEP the major offenders in jail and let the minor ones out, even with more offenses. Minor offenses are nothing compared to other worse crimes.

Plus, those stricter gun laws mean nothing. Who is going to put a bayonet on an assualt rifle? How many people care to put a folding stock on an assault rifle? What does registering an assault rifle TWICE have to do with getting guns away from crooks? Nothing. These laws are idiotic and a waste of taxpayer money due to the complete waste of manhours and processing all these laws involve. Keep the GOOD gun laws that serve a purpose!

[ren28]

Originally posted by armycommando_turned_doctor@Nov 27 2002, 02:51 PM
I've fired the HK G36K during a demo by HK for USSOCOM. It is an impressive rifle. I'm also a fan of HK.


Knights SR 25 is a M-16 on steriods. Just picture an M-16 chamber in the 7.62(.308).
Sounds like an AR10. I fired an Armalite AR10 and it was a very fine weapon. Too bad they are banned in CA now because of all the pansies that have never fired guns and are afraid of guns.

[ren28]

Originally posted by iris@Nov 27 2002, 05:56 PM
You silly boys! :lol:


Anyhow, just to clear up a point. The three year decrease in CA includes two years prior to 9/11 (since we can't count 2002 yet). I brought up those last 3 years because the decrease has been greatest, but CA gun-related crimes and deaths have decreased since 1991 when stringent gun laws were brought into affect. :rolleyes:
There is a very clear line between good gun laws and bad gun laws. People need to find that distinction. People who have never gun target shooting and other pansies will tend to think any gun law is a good gun law. Make GOOD laws and enforce the current laws. Making bad laws against guns (and their owners) does nothing but pit gun people against non-gun people.

The California crime rate was already on it's way down before ridiculous gun laws. If one were to look closely on the ban of assault weapons... one would know that these weapons played a part in gun crimes about 0-3% of the time. That did not help a lot. It sure costed the people a lot of money in taxes though.

High capacity clip issues are sensationalized by the media and BOOM, 10 round limits are enacted. The truth of the matter is that the instances where these large clips are used are incredibly rare. The average number of shots fired by a criminal is 2.55 shots.

[loserbutt]

Originally posted by ren28@Nov 29 2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by iris@Nov 27 2002, 05:56 PM
You silly boys! &nbsp; :lol:


Anyhow, just to clear up a point. The three year decrease in CA includes two years prior to 9/11 (since we can't count 2002 yet). I brought up those last 3 years because the decrease has been greatest, but CA gun-related crimes and deaths have decreased since 1991 when stringent gun laws were brought into affect. &nbsp; :rolleyes:
There is a very clear line between good gun laws and bad gun laws. People need to find that distinction. People who have never gun target shooting and other pansies will tend to think any gun law is a good gun law. Make GOOD laws and enforce the current laws. Making bad laws against guns (and their owners) does nothing but pit gun people against non-gun people.

The California crime rate was already on it's way down before ridiculous gun laws. If one were to look closely on the ban of assault weapons... one would know that these weapons played a part in gun crimes about 0-3% of the time. That did not help a lot. It sure costed the people a lot of money in taxes though.

High capacity clip issues are sensationalized by the media and BOOM, 10 round limits are enacted. The truth of the matter is that the instances where these large clips are used are incredibly rare. The average number of shots fired by a criminal is 2.55 shots.
yea... people who don't shoot guns are pansies.... or is it thats just the way you feel? though its more likely in ren's case that if he didn't shoot a gun he'd be a pansy, though it doesn't really make a difference in his case.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Dec 1 2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by ren28@Nov 29 2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by iris@Nov 27 2002, 05:56 PM
You silly boys! :lol:


Anyhow, just to clear up a point. The three year decrease in CA includes two years prior to 9/11 (since we can't count 2002 yet). I brought up those last 3 years because the decrease has been greatest, but CA gun-related crimes and deaths have decreased since 1991 when stringent gun laws were brought into affect. :rolleyes:
There is a very clear line between good gun laws and bad gun laws. People need to find that distinction. People who have never gun target shooting and other pansies will tend to think any gun law is a good gun law. Make GOOD laws and enforce the current laws. Making bad laws against guns (and their owners) does nothing but pit gun people against non-gun people.

The California crime rate was already on it's way down before ridiculous gun laws. If one were to look closely on the ban of assault weapons... one would know that these weapons played a part in gun crimes about 0-3% of the time. That did not help a lot. It sure costed the people a lot of money in taxes though.

High capacity clip issues are sensationalized by the media and BOOM, 10 round limits are enacted. The truth of the matter is that the instances where these large clips are used are incredibly rare. The average number of shots fired by a criminal is 2.55 shots.
yea... people who don't shoot guns are pansies.... or is it thats just the way you feel? though its more likely in ren's case that if he didn't shoot a gun he'd be a pansy, though it doesn't really make a difference in his case.
Hey, don't call him a pansy!

If he likes guns, let him like guns. As long as people can harness their interests into something PRODUCTIVE, then I don't give a CRAP what they're interested in.

I went to the shooting range on my 16th birthday. It scared the SHIT out of me. But most of the people I saw and met there seemed like really reasonable, nice, mentally sane people. So I'm not worried about people having guns in their homes. There just won't be any in MINE.

[ren28]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 30 2002, 04:15 PM
yea... people who don't shoot guns are pansies.... or is it thats just the way you feel? though its more likely in ren's case that if he didn't shoot a gun he'd be a pansy, though it doesn't really make a difference in his case.
Pansies are people who make things personal while hiding behind a computer screen online when no reference to a specific person was made to start with. :lol:

The topic says guns suck "and so do gun aficionados." I think unreasonable gun haters are pansies which is the opposite and undirected towards anyone in particular. You made it personal and directed your hate towards me. Somehow I find that very amusing. It goes to show just how moronic people can be due to gross bias, and a lack of objective reasoning. I feel sorry for people who cannot escape their own version of reality, especially when they have already been proven wrong. Wait, I better go kill/maim someone with my guns since I am a gun owner. :lol:

[loserbutt]

whatever ren, just remember that most people don't need guns to make up for their smallness

[lethal]

*ahem*

I'd like to remind everyone of the rule against personal attacks.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Dec 1 2002, 06:39 AM
*ahem*

I'd like to remind everyone of the rule against personal attacks.
thank you, Lethal.

Loserbutt--- don't live up to your name. cool it w/ the penis jokes.

[ren28]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Nov 30 2002, 10:37 PM
whatever ren, just remember that most people don't need guns to make up for their smallness
Making personal attacks behind a computer proves nothing besides your own inadequacies.

[loserbutt]

*statement deleted b/c it's immature*

as for my problem... I don't like guns but feel that people who feel obligated to own a legal gun should keep them in a safe place in case of emergency... but surely not go swaggering around puffing themselves up with it.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by ren28@Dec 1 2002, 07:17 AM
Making personal attacks behind a computer proves nothing besides your own inadequacies.
ren, i've told loserbutt to tone down. you tone down, as well, too, because you'll receive the same treatment i accord him if you keep up the whining.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Nov 22 2002, 06:01 PM
ok i want to stress that let there be a debate about gun control but i'll be keeping an eye on this thread and it'll be closed the minute there is a specific personal attack.
i guess people forgot about this post i made in the very beginning.



closing...