ZOMBIE FORUMS

Gun control

I personally have been VERY pro gun-control in the past, but lately i've adopted a more free approach to it.

I believe a person has the right to have the freedom of having a gun, a person can use that to defend themself in the home or late at night, AMMUNITION on the other hand should probably be a tad more regulated[MotO]...cuz that's the lethal part of a gun...[/MotO] I think that more powerful weapons though, like Ollie's RPG, are a tad excessive...

and I have heard of a security mesure like a small, low power bracelet that tells the gun it can't shoot unless less than a foot away or something like that

so maybe a few more restrictions, not much ammo needed, allow only handguns, that's my stance

now lemme put my bullet-proof vest on real quick....
...
...
K, fire away!

OOP *puts helmet on too*

EDIT:there ya go Clay....i'm sowwy...

And how do you propose to regulate ammo?

authorized sellers, like NOT WAL-MART, and maybe coupon like, only so much a month, if at all...

I mean, a person only needs a bullet or two to scare a robber/rapist/assulter/etc.

Actually you only need one. Right between the eyes.

But Grey's point was, guns are far more regulated and they can still be found rather cheap in unofficial channels, bullets are cheaper, thought of as less important, and more importantly small and easily concealable. Not gonna work.

-MiB

ok, so if more than one person attacks you before your next coupon day?

guns dont' shoot people, i shoot people

guns and bullets are illegal here, people get shot, laws dont' stop people doing bad things, get over it

now what?

i feel this has came up before

EDIT: Dammit, beat by two much more knowledgeable fellows. Oh well, I'll leave it all the same....


Of course, he/she also only needs a bullet or two to kill that annoying co-worker/spouse/friend/co-worker sleeping with spouse while being videotaped by friend....

Or were you more interested in preventing Columbine-esque massacres than individual murders? In which case, would you want to go so far as to somehow ID every bullet so that, if such an event were to occur, the authorities could match the ammo to whoever bought it, and possibly hold the one(s) who purchased the bullets as nearly responsible as the ones who pulled the trigger? Because while I feel that's excessive, I see few other ways of preventing people who really want a lot of ammo from simply getting it from their friends, especially given the long-ingrained permissive attitude toward such things which is deeply rooted in the American Spirit and all that rot.

Plus, let's not forget that whenever you put a legal limit on something, you plant a seed for a black market to spring up quick as a daisy, and frankly, bullets are both easy enough to manufacture and plentiful enough overseas that anyone who really wanted to get their hands on some would have pretty much no problem doing so.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't try and prevent gun deaths. I just felt like procrastinating by pointing out a few obvious side effects to your ideas.

I don't blame people for keeping a gun these days for protection. I blame the dumb fucks who decided to let the general populace have them in the first place

In my opinion they should have made guns illegal following the establishment of a national army. However for some God forsaken reason they thought people were sensible enough to have their own guns without parental supervision thus we are in the vice we are today.

Frankly though most people who I have met that are against gun control hold their position just because they like guns. The logical justification comes later. Though I am not going to pull an Ad Hominem since I know there are many people with legit reasons to own guns.

I would personally like to see mortal combat competitions sanctioned. People need to stop denying that they would enjoy seeing a bunch of guy shot each other to hell on live national TV. It's the next natural step in reality television. People act like that have actually advanced since the times of the Colosseum.

This being said I am all for killing people. People cause no end of problems and if you were to select a person at random and kill them you would statistically be doing the world a favor.

Oh yeah, lets take the guns away from people, some of whome make their livelihood with said guns, because guns = bad.

I mean honestly, its not like criminals could ever get guns if we made them illigal, aussieland and britain prove this with the fact that criminals don't have any guns ever, its all the fault of the fact that guns are legal now.

Its funny, "OMEG NOBODY IS MATURE ENUFF TO HANDLE GUNS," I mean the absurd majority of Americans who own guns do so responsibily, apparently though in your opinion stupid people using guns means ONLY stupid people use guns.

-MiB

First off, gun control only works against law-abiding citizens, because they're the ones who say "Oh, guns are illegal, better not get one then." Criminals will still have guns, regardless of the legislation. Look at England. Place a, for all intents and purposes, ban on guns, and what do you get? Rising crime rate coupled with a rising gun crime rate. Surprise surprise, the criminals didn't pay attention to the "No Guns Allowed" law.



Systems like this are worthless. Period. They are delicate, expensive, unreliable, and take up space. If you're worried about Junior getting your gun and killing his friend, put a good trigger-lock on it and carry the key with you. Better yet, educate Junior to the point where he knows what the gun is capable of and has a healthy respect for it, as I did in my childhood.



Shotguns are excellent home-defense weapons, although they're not so great for mobile self-defense. They're also useful for hunting, as are rifles. In case you didn't know, deer hunting is a necessity in the U.S., because the natural predators of the deer populations have been wiped out or driven off, and unchecked deer population growth leads to habitat destruction, increase in deer-related car accidents, and other generalized unpleasantness.

I personally don't hunt, not because of any dislike of the idea of shooting something but because of the fact that it requires you to get up at ungodly hours and sit in a cramped, cold place for hours on end, waiting for a target to show up. I also don't own a gun, because my college campus does not allow them and it would be rather pointless to have one just to keep at family's home, since there are already several guns there. But, once I'm out of the dorm and into a permanent apartment or house, I do plan to own a gun (most likely a shotgun).

Dumbass read my post. I don't think we should take guns away from people. It is way to late for that.

I didn't say that there aren't people mature enough to keep guns and not shoot innocent people (there are a few I hear) I just said that as a whole people are wrathful fucktards who will shoot anything that moves. Unless you can think of some easy way to test for fucktardity guns should have been barred from all civilian hands.

Don't ever again tell me what my opinion is or isn't.

Lead bullets are very easy to make yourself and shell casings can be repacked. Granted, the alloys used in modern bullets are beyond the home user, reasonable facsimiles can be home brewed.

...k, the ammo control loses ;_;

BUT I still think firearms need to be reigned in, Honestly, why would a person need something BESIDE a pistol, defendable is defendable, and while yes, ANY weapon could be smuggled in, it's a tad easier when we don't bring them ourselves to gun shops in the ghettos.

Here's the outline to a speech I did last year on Gun Control. My opinions haven't changed much.

Jack Sawyer is fictitious, but his story is based on truth (don't ask me where, I've long since forgotten). Also, a few things in there are only there because this was a graded speech. And the visual aid was a chalk drawing of a gun with a large circle around the trigger guard that was filled in, showing where a trigger lock would be.

Anyway, gun control is a fucking stupid idea, conceived by fucking stupid people. The whole point of the second amendment is that the people should be allowed to defend themselves from the government in case said government becomes tyrannical. Now, if, theoretically, gun control was applied to the army and police department, and all other branches of government, I'd be all for it. That's not fucking going to happen. If the public is too stupid and/or immature to handle firearms, then our corrupt, bureaucratic, inefficient government sure as hell isn't either.

Fuck, I think the government should be handing out firearms to every citizen in the country. You know, like they hand out condoms in high schools? That way people who can't afford a good gun can still get one. We don't want the upper classes in possession of all the weaponry, after all, now do we?

Nearly every argument I've seen for gun control has been from the standpoint that people don't really 'need' guns, or if they do, they don't need more than a handgun or other such simple device. Or guns cause problems so they should be abolished. Most arguments against gun control have been in the form of "...blah...second ammendment" or "It's impossible to control them and doing so would only limit guns to criminals." These are almost as bad as for the 'for' arguments. And all of the above are irrelevent.

Now, follow me if you will:

1. Rights are not 'GIVEN' by society. The entire concept of a 'right' is that it cannot be taken away, only violated. A majority does not have more rights that each of it's individuals and cannot take away the rights of a minority, the smallest minority being that of one.

2. The United States was founded on the idea that one has an inalienable right to ones life. The right to self defense is corollary of this, as is the right to property. (And I believe this right to life IS objective)

3. Guns, as a method of self defense from physical force cannot be banned as it would be a violation of the right to life.

You can reject the truth of my premises if you wish (I'd simply say you're irrational), but if you accept them, that the right to life and the corollary, the right to defend one's life exist, then I'd hope you agree. Guns cannot be banned without a violation of rights. Violations of rights are not acceptable. As for things such as mandatory gun locks, I would suggest the government would be violating property rights in passing such laws. It is one's own property and one should be able to do with it as one wishes...unless you take into account the illogical concept of future crime:

"You might commit a crime with the gun in the future therefore the government can violate your rights with physical force (regulation laws that threaten jailtime if disobeyed, death if resisted) now as if you already have."

I'll be damned if I let some majority use physical force to take away my rights...Which means I'll be going to $religion->badplace(); in the near future for complacently living in contemporary society.

see, thats' the problem, when you start arguing about specifics like 2nd Ammendments or ocks and laws then it's alla little past the start point, which is the whole *basic* human rights. circling aound technicalities and aruging for a world population with specific examples and nations (the U and UK as they both speak forms of English and are therefor <I>directly</I> comparable) just gets you further away from the point

i for one don't believe in basic human rights, but then i'm like that, look at my title...

America, like any country, is a very special case for a number of reasons, it just so happens that most Americans get a lot of free time to go on about this stuff and inflate it out of all proportion

there is no answer other than to repeal all laws and let everyone get on with it themselves, or legislate for every possable eventuality and have mass internations of sectors of teh population who might be at risk or being a commiter/victim of crim at some point, for their own good

if i don't like you and you cut off my hands so i can't hit you, i'll kick you, not become your friend

still, unarmed combat is far more common/effective at the moment, guns are over hyped in their use on <I>real</I> peopel, most if criminal on criminal or suicide/domestic, all where there are ample other means at hand to carry out the incident

laws: all or nothing

I must say that I am against gun control. First off, a good deal of people do hunt quite a bit. Without guns, there really isn't a viable hunting solution. Kylear already made this point about how some hunting is needed to regulate population. On a side note to Ky, deer hunting doesn't require that you be cramped up waiting for a target. Thats the lazy modern way of hunting. Some people still follow the traditional method of actually hunting down some deer, but that takes more time and effort than a lot of people are willing to exert.

It simply doesn't matter if guns are legal or not, people will still have them. By taking munitions away from the law abiding peoples, then you are simply leaving them defenseless to those who do not abide by those laws. Note that I do not personally own a gun, as I don't have a need. I cannot legally carry a handgun at my age and I have no where to shoot a rifle, so I have no use for them. However, there is a gun in my house. One of my roomates has a double barrel shotgun in his room. If need be, we can and will defend our house.

I believe all the guns should be controlled. By me. If should be illegal for anyone to own, touch, see, or even know about guns but me. Bam, no gun related crimes. Except those I commit.

The problem with guns is not rifles or shotguns, but handguns. Handguns are widely available, cheap, and all in all perfect for an urban enviroment.

Therefore, the issue of gun control primarly concerns handguns and their use in violent crime. I think the concept 'smart' handguns are the way to go - guns that can only be fired by its legal owner. Whether this is done with a lock or some more high tech, it is a good measure to implement.

Next, the idea of mandatory gun training is a good idea. The government won't let you drive a car if you can't use it and do not have a license; the same should be true for guns. Just as there is a driving test (on paper or computer) followed by a road test, the same should exist for handguns.

How about "give everyone a loaded gun"?

That solves the problem of violent crime pretty quick, when everyone can shoot back no more massaquers of unarmed civilians, because there are no more unarmed civilians.

As a side not, everyone will be a lot more polite to each other when you know if you push John Doe too far he'll pull out his piece and shoot you in the face.

-MiB