The government should take action and allow carrying of guns in those waters with a permit and provide free training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Printable View
The government should take action and allow carrying of guns in those waters with a permit and provide free training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Too lazy to read through the posts, so this is in reference to the first poster:
It has been shown that guns aren't all that great in terms of self-defense, and studies show that you're far more likely to shoot a loved one than an actual intruder. For hunting purposes, however, guns do come in handy...despite the availability of crossbows, but that's another debate. So yeah, I think people should be allowed to own guns...within reason. No one should have access to fully-automatic or sub-machine guns, etc. or excessively high-calibur weaponry. Also, people should really be a lot more responsible with the way they store their firearms...kids stumble upon handguns and accidentally shoot each other all the time. It really is quite sad.
So, while I do not feel the government should ban guns, they should at least start passing a few restrictions, or leave it up to the state governments to pass custom restrictions. Meh...never really impacted me directly.
The question is, why should we not be able to have assault rifles? Should all 300 million of us be restricted from legitimately owning and operating these weapons, just to try and prevent one single incident such as the one that happened in california in the 90's, with two guys robbing a bank with assault rifles?
As if they would have brought .22's instead, if they knew assault rifles were illegal.
Man i cant remember what the date was on that, but i think it was in the 90's. Two guys got in a shootout with police at a bank in california. It lasted for hours.
Anyways, if it was after 1994, then assault weapons were illegal anyways. This goes to show that making something illegal isnt going to stop criminals from getting it, by definition a criminal is someone who breaks the law
True, but it makes it a lot harder for the criminal. At least they won't be able to go knocking on their neighbor's door and ask to borrow their assault rifle for the weekend. Besides, how often would a person use such a weapon, and for what purposes? It's excessive and wholly unnecessary firepower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
The whole purpose is to protect from, you know the drill, "all enemies foreign and domestic"
That's why we used to have militias back before they all got incorporated into the Army. The average farmer in early america had the same level of firepower as any soldier in the United States military. Nowadays a civilian can't hardly own a 9 millimeter without going through hours of processing and bureaucracy, while our military could literally blow up the entire planet. (make it uninhabitable)
Sadly, i think the days of us being able to overthrow the government if it gets out of control have come and gone. But that still doesn't mean that we dont have the right to. Note that I am not calling for violence, but any unlawful attack on the civilian populace by either a foreign force or our own government justifies retaliation.
If you are surrounded by a gang of thugs about to attack you or have intruders in several different parts of your living room, an automatic weapon is much better to use than a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. If you drive up into a riot where the rioters are attacking people in their cars, what kind of gun would you like to have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
The thugs are going to have automatic weapons, law or no law. I should be allowed a chance to match them.
A war on guns would be like the war on drugs.
Okay, how often does a person find themselves surrounded by heavily-armed thugs? Do you really think an assault rifle would make any difference? As soon as you fire the first shot, you're dead. You could do about the same damage with a pistol. Either way, you're going down. Besides, when you reach for a pistol, you can at least be a bit discreet about it. What are you gonna do with an assault rifle? "Hang on a sec...I just gotta get set up here. Please don't shoot at me quite yet." Riiight...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
The same logic applies to concealed carrying for self defense. Out of the small but not negligible odds that you will experience a life-threatening confrontation, what are the odds that you, reacting to an aggressor, will have the opportunity to draw a weapon? In those few instances, how likely is it you will be able to cover or shoot the assailant before they can respond? Are these odds greater than the likelihood that the attempt to draw a weapon will escalate the incident and invite deadly force?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Also, I would be amazed if the incidents in which a legal concealed weapon was used to thwart a crime outnumbered those in which a weapon stolen from a permit holder's home or vehicle was used to commit a crime.
I'm not suggesting concealed carry should be outlawed, just pointing out that, for an individual, it's a bad idea. What you're getting is a false sense of control and security that may actually put yourself, your loved ones, and your community at greater risk. You're also getting a two-to-four-pound reminder to fear thy neighbor and expect the worst.
With an automatic weapon, you could wipe out everybody in a flash. That is the advantage of them. You could have the gun ready to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
How often does somebody find himself surrounded by heavily armed thugs? First of all, the thugs don't have to be heavily armed. If they all just have screw drivers or even just fists, I deserve my chance at defending myself against them. The answer to your question is "more often than never". It does happen. It has happened to people I know. It is reality. Your policy makes things easier for the thugs. My policy makes things easier for the victims. Whose side are you on?
Plus, thugs feel safer about attacking people when they are not expecting to have to deal with effective weaponry. That makes them more dangerous than otherwise.
No matter what you say about odds and abilities, the point is that I should get to make those calculations and decisions, not you.
There was a town somewhere in the U.S. that required all residents to own guns. Now, I don't agree with that law either, but the situation taught an important lesson. Burlgaries went way down in the town as a result of the law. What does that tell you?
Again, are you going to be carrying around a heavy assault rifle with you everywhere? If you find yourself surrounded by thugs, armed with whatever, are you even going to have time to draw before someone drives a screwdriver into your spine or sucker-punches you in the back of the head? No, not unless you plan to keep it on a strap around your shoulder, military-style, which would create a whole slew of other problems. Ever hear of a purse snatcher? Same concept. You'd be arming the thugs. Besides, if they were coming at you with fists, whatever, I think a semi-automatic handgun with a good clip in it should do the job...provided you could even draw the weapon, which most people cannot in a panic situation. Of course, if you're being attacked by brutes with guns, you're dead if you even try to reach for the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Long story short: Increased firepower will solve nothing. Even standard firepower may not help in the least.
Like I said, the major point is that I should be the one who decides whether I want to take those chances. Also, yes... If you are in your car or in your house and you get invaded or surrounded, you will most likely have time to reach for your machine gun. The government has no business telling us we can't at least try.
The sad fact of the matter is that when you take those chances, you endanger everyone else. It may be your business to carry an automatic weapon with you everywhere you go, but if someone flips out, snatches your gun, and shoots everyone up, it's kinda on your head. The guy was nuts, but you gave him the required weaponry that he would not have been able to obtain otherwise, or at least would have had to go through a whole hell of a lot more trouble for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Also, lets say a pack of goons invades your home. Again, what's wrong with a sub-automatic pistol? It doesn't fire 25 rounds per second, but it makes a nice clean hole wherever you like...provided you can even hold it steady, of course.
That can happen with any weapon. If I had an automatic, I wouldn't want to walk around with it. I would just keep it in my car and my house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
You might get a clean hole in one or two of them before getting your head blown off. If you are one of Clint Eastwood's characters, maybe you can shoot six guys right away with a pistol. With an automatic, you have a much better chance of shooting all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Not everybody can do this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ldZx...eature=related
I think that is the greatest scene in the history of Westerns, by the way.
If some thugs came at you armed with screwdrivers, chances are that they would stop if you drew up a handgun, since you'd have the superior fire-power, and some of them at least would get wounded or killed in a confrontation. But if you were up against thugs armed with handguns, an assault rifle wouldn't really help all that much. You'd still lose. Therefore the extra fire-power of an assault rifle isn't that much of a advantage.
If guys with screw drivers are where four of them can stab you before you can shoot two or three of them with a pistol, an automatic would work better and scare them better. If they have handguns, your chances of dealing with them are better with an automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
One way or the other, it should be up to me to make the determination. Automatics are definitely better than pistols for certain situations. That is why they are made.
While I agree that using an "assualt" rifle may not be practical in random self-defense cases, such as while being mugged by thugs, banning them or otherwise making them unavailable would be silly.
It seems to me that the most logical argument for the average civilian being allowed to own assault weapons is not to prevent theft or mugging, it would be to deter any dictatorial government from trying to take control. Imagine if while the police were confiscating guns during Katrina, the majority of those gun owners had assault rifles instead of pistols. They may have thought twice about knocking down doors and trying to illegally take their guns.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Why can't we have tanks? What if the thugs have assault rifles? Furthermore, why can't we have nukes, they may have tanks?
Nukes can't be used for self defense against muggers because they would kill the person trying to protect himself and also the entire rest of his city. No self defense argument there, and citizens should not have the ability to destroy entire cities. Plus, it would give them way too much power over the government. Tanks are not exactly something you can whip out to defend yourself, so the assaut weapons argument does not apply to tanks either. And tanks can be controlled very effectively. You can't exactly hide a tank under your seat. Also, the police are no match for a tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
If they pass the law, muggings in the park and things like that are going to increase. Its really common sense. Criminals always take the easy targets, and if you know no one has a gun in an area, and they might some where else, then that area just became the easy target.
All the big mass shootings happen in areas with gun bans, and once again its common sense as to why. If people around you have guns, they will shoot you if you attack them. If no one has a gun, then you are in total control and can kill whoever you wish.
Lets say you are in a library. If someone walks in with an ak 47 and waves it around, what happens if no one has a gun? Everyone just screams, and they hide. He is then free to walk around and shoot anyone he wishes. If he finds you hiding he could walk right up to you, aim the gun at your head, make you beg for you life then casually blow your brains all over the floor.
Now the same situation with guns. Someone is going to shoot him. Yes, he might still get a couple of people, but its not going to be a 27 person rampage.
As for an assault rifle, not helping against thugs armed with pistols. That is silly. For one, an assault rifle goes through body armor better. So if they are wearing body armor, an assault rifle is needed. Though people normally go with shotguns instead. Since they are better for home defense. The main reason your not going to use an assault rifle at home, is because if you start shooting bullets all over they are going to go through the walls and possibly kill someone by accident. Though if your outside of a city they are more reasonable.
Also unlike the movies and games you have to be realistic. You can run out of ammo, so guns with large ammo capacity are better. Especially since people in real life miss a heck a lot more often. It is actually possible that 3 thugs can break in each with a pistol, empty their clips at you and miss every time. You might fire back and miss every time as well. Which again, is why shot guns are useful. Buck shot first, since it has a better chance of hitting and isn't likely to go through the wall and kill anyone. Then you can move to something stronger if they got body armor.
Also, guns do help. If you see someone walking around with an assault rifle, who is going to attack them? No way is a thief or rapist going after the move heavily armed person in the area. Normally the sight of a pistol is going to make any mugger or criminal back off real quickly. And anyone breaking into your home to find you carrying a shotgun is gone. I don't care what the thief has as far as weapons, they are not going to mess around with someone holding a shotgun.
Anyway, people have full right to decide what they want to have. Who is the government to decide what is reasonable? I am all for people owning tanks, as long as they leave them on their property. Or driving them as long as they do not cause damage to the streets. If you want to fly around in an attack helicopter good for you.
Well over the vast majority of people do not want to die a horrible death. So except for the extremely small amount of people(something like .0001%), no one is going to take an action that will lead to their imminent death. Which includes, attacking a heavily armed place, firing a tank at anything, or messing with someone they know owns a gun.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
ahhhhhhhhhhhh...
HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I've wondered if it was possible, and never knew it had been done. God damn.
Also, I like the idea of being able to have a gun with which to defend myself,
not only from the people, but from a tyrannical government should they see it
fit to abuse their power. That's what I always figured guns were for, when put
in the hands of the people.
Slippery slopeQuote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
I agree with the OP that banning wouldn't make a difference where it needs to be counted. IMO it'd just make things worse for the victims.