Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
Couldn't agree more. I love Britain but in some ways your culture is much more robust. We can't get over fretting about risks in our nanny state. It must be a fine thing to eat meat you've killed yourself
-
Well you all have valid points and I respect them. I am 100% with you on the fact that you need to be able to defend yourself, and that quick action sometimes needs to be taken rather than trying to call the police and wait for them - anything could happen during that time.
However, I personally think that carrying an instrument that was designed to, and can easily take someone's life away is disrespectful to life itself. For self-defense, I always carry mace with me. I figure that if I need to defend myself, I'd much rather temporarily blind someone and piss the hell out of them (and I would probably kick the sh1t out of them when they're blind), than stabbing them or giving them lead. My point is I would never want to inflict anyone with any kind of permanent, irreversible damage.
There are alternatives to firearms, that's all I'm saying.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." — Sigmond Freud
I think a fear of weapons is not in place here. -
Ok Samorost, really a good point of view. And I almost agree with you.
Cheers with a good pinch of Railroad Mills Plain!!!! -
-
CommentAuthorTroutstroker
- CommentTimeMar 12th 2008
Just remember samorost, one wrong kick could kill someone. And here in the US if you maced someone then "kicked the sh#t out of them", chances are you would go to jail. Once the threat is subdued your not supposed to inflict any more pain/damage. Like if someone broke into my house and I pulled a gun on them and they turned around to run away and I shot them in the back, I would go to jail because if they were running away, my life was no longer in danger. There are alternatives to firearms but they all come with their own risk. There are no guaranteed non-lethal forms of self defense. Firearms aren't for everyone. But both mace pepper spray and stun guns have killed people. Stun guns actually kill quite a good number of people each year. You could punch someone and they could fall down and break their head open. And someone pissed off enough by getting sprayed can still fire his gun. He may not be able to see where he's aiming but he can still squeeze the trigger. And depending on where you hit them with the spray and depending if they are hopped up on drugs, they can still come after you. And for the pepper spray to even work, you need to be a good distance away. If you are too close when you spray, your putting yourself at risk to be affected as well and where does that put you. Its not made for indoor protection unless you are able to make a quick escape. If your indoors while using it, anyone in the area will be affected including your spouse, kids, pets etc. Pepper spay is made to give you time to run away. I remember being at a car show in Reno called 'Hot August Nights'. There was a small group of teenagers fighting so the police sprayed them with mace. Well the wind carried the mace and infected over 200 innocent people. They had to call paramedics to wash everyones eyes out. Luckily for me, I was at the other end of the car show.
"Depending on brand, an OC spray may contain water, alcohols, or organic solvents as liquid carriers; and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or halogenated hydrocarbons (such as Freon, tetrachloroethylene, and methylene chloride) as propellants to discharge the canister contents. Inhalation of high doses of some of these chemicals can produce adverse cardiac, respiratory, and neurologic effects, including arrhythmias and sudden death".
But as long as its your right to carry a gun, its also your right to not carry a gun. It has to be a personal choice. -
-
I have watched this discussion for awhile but have been silent, but I am an owner of several handguns, and I plan on eventually getting an assault rifle. I would sum up my enthusiasm for the second amendment right as this:
I am comfortable knowing that I have the legal right to BE ABLE to kill somebody that means to kill me or my loved ones.
I also believe that it is an EXTREMELY respectable position to supply for yourself your own food, though I do not hunt but would like to. -
Like boobah204, I too remained silent but interested in this thread. I am a gun owner and a member of the NRA. I was raised pretty anti-gun by my mother who has little use for any kind of weapon. I carried these beliefs with me well into my 20's. I am not sure if it was just my age, responsibility, or, living in Oakland that changed my point of view. But my point of view changed and I became a firearms owner.
I may come from a different perspective than some pro-gun folks however. As a vegetarian I don’t hunt and never will (no need to for me). I rarely see the need for me personally, to carry concealed these days, and I see the second amendment more as more of a tool for keeping our government in check than simply keeping criminals at bay. That said I would, without hesitation, protect my home, family, and possessions with deadly force if the situation were to arise, without remorse. I am not ashamed to say that I believe that catching lead is an occupational hazard of being a criminal that enters others homes with ill intent.
I am happy that while so many of us have different views on firearms that we can have a civilized discussion on the topic where there is respect shown to all the people here and their points of view. This forum is truly unique in that way.
Cheers- -
-
CommentAuthorNelsonPipeClub
- CommentTimeMar 12th 2008
Warning: Use of snuff may cause civility, respect for others, thoughtful discussion, and tolerance. Use at your own risk. -
-
-
CommentAuthorTroutstroker
- CommentTimeMar 13th 2008
If people do not exercise their rights, its a lot easier for their rights to die! -
-
-
CommentAuthorTroutstroker
- CommentTimeMar 13th 2008 edited
lofat, here is a quote that goes with what you said:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
Also good news for those living in Arizona. 15 other states now have the same pending legislation. Arizona weighs bill to allow concealed carry on campuses -
-
I carried in college. Of course I wasn't supposed to, but at an art school I was a bit suspect of the stability of some of my peers. possibly it was hypocritical of me as I really had no right to say that i was more sane than any of them but after the Virginia Tech thing, well i felt reassured I had been right for doing so. I knew alot of guys like that dude, watching his videos.
-
There's nothing I hate more than the misleading term "assault rifle" ... I prefer long gun or rifle, using the word 'assault' seems more prescriptive than descriptive and if you prescribe that I am going to use my AR-15 to launch an assault then you've made an incorrect assumption. You know what happens when you assume, you make ans ASS out of U and ME! That just ticks me off...
-
Americas gun laws gives easy access to handguns for basically anyone. Now a lot of nutjobs legally has their own gun and so you have to get one yourself, in case you need to protect yourself. It's just a damn bad circle.
Here in Sweden I haven't seen a handgun in anyone but the police or militaries hand, and I'm glad it's that way. I'd much rather take a punch or two in the face by an idiot than shooting him to death for protecting myself and risking a jail sentence.
Having a gun makes people do stupid and rushed decisions. -
I'm with you Malrynn, this is exactly what I was trying to say!
@ TS: I'm completely aware of the dangers that a bad kick can represent, and then again I would have to say if I really came to be in a situation where I have to spray someone, I would most likely run away right after. I understand the attacker could very well still shoot his gun, and that drugs could just make the whole thing worse, but I still believe it would be even worse to shoot someone or stab them and cause potential irreversible damage. Besides, an injured criminal would probably not go to a hospital for fear of being apprehended and therefore his wounds could complicate, resulting in a long, painful death.
It's good that you told me about mace's potential dangers. I had always thought that if I ever get attacked, I would just discharge the entire can on my attacker to be 100% sure I neutralize him. But now I guess I'd just try and use as little mace as possible to just blind him (or her, you never know) so I can get the hell away.
Then again I'm a wuss, I would probably just give him all my stuff, pepper spray canister included :( -
Marynn,
You are very lucky, in Sweden you have an amazing society where even the bad guys are polite and gun crime is unheard of.
Here in the UK we have some of the toughest gun laws in the world, yet there are more guns on the street now that they have been banned, than ever before.
I don’t know what the answer is, but with all the illegal guns owned by criminals in the UK, I’m glad to be one of the million citizens in Britain licensed to keep a gun. -
Roderick, I don't know if you were sarcastic or not but of course gun crimes are far from unheard of in Sweden. It's just not that common.
If every gun owner were responsible and used it only in the worst case scenarios, then I would definitely be more positive. But in America it's pretty obvious that every gun owner isn't responsible and thus it shouldn't be as easy as it is to get a license. But I don't blame Americans for getting guns, I like to shoot with rifles myself (basic human fascination with the destructive I guess) and I also realise that there is a threat with all other gunowners. They should've had limited gun purchases a long time ago, that's all I am saying.
Besides, who needs an assault rifle for self-defense anyways? :) -
Malrynn,
I spoke from Spain, following Roderick, I tell you are a very lucky man and Sweden is a very lucky society. Here in Spain we also have a very restrictive firearm's law....but you need to see the modern weapons criminals have! and honest citizens are not allowed to have even a simple self-defense spray! -
Hand guns are not that easy to get. There is a process and many people are not legally allowed to own guns in the United States. People with a history of drug use, mental instability, a criminal record, drunk driving offenses, spousal abuse, etc. etc., are not allowed to have handguns. Unfortunately illegal guns are not that difficult to get in the cities for someone who knows someone. Take a look at San Francisco where handguns were banned for all - yet gun crime was on the rise. I think they finally realized that legal guns and legal gun owners were not part of the problem. The majority of gun crimes in the USA are not committed with guns that are legally owned. That's not to say that every legal gun owner is perfect but the majority of people who have gone through the legal process, passed the fire arms safety test, had the department of justice perform a background check, and waited 10 days are responsible gun owners.
-
I agree completely with you lofat. Honest citizens must have the right to have guns. The problem is criminals...but criminals are not allowed to have it!
-
Malrynn,
No sarcasm intended, I love Sweden and feel very safe when I’m there. What I’m saying is that if you ban anything, it just makes it worse not better. Having said that, I think most would agree that selling guns must be done responsibly and should not be as easy to buy as an ice cream.
Lofat Summed it up perfectly, it’s not the legal owner you need to worry about. -
-
CommentAuthorTroutstroker
- CommentTimeMar 13th 2008 edited
Like Roderick mentioned, a complete ban on something just makes it worse not better. Take drugs for example. Things such as marijuana, cocaine, meth and a huge amount of other drugs are illegal in the US. But you can go into any city or town and find them. The crime rate dealing with these drugs is filling up the prisions and its not slowing down. The money spent by this country to try and fight drugs is mind blowing. From cities having to hire more police to government agencies. Tax payer dollars having to support these people in prison. Not to mention the amount of people killed over drugs each year. For every drug dealer you bust, two more take their place. Its just about supply and demand. If all the drug dealers got picked up in one day, the demand would go through the roof and there would be a lot of people willing to take the risk and take their place. Just as drugs can enter the US from other countries, the same can be said for guns/weapons. So even if every gun manufacturer in the US quit making guns, there would still be a substantial amount of new guns coming into the US from other countries. And if the average citizen wasn't allowed to buy them anymore, you know that someone out there would still be buying them under the table. They had a complete ban of guns in D.C. and since the ban, gun crime had gone up. More home robberies, more shootings. But luckily now, they have overturned part of the law. You are now allowed to keep handguns in the home.
The difference in the US from other countries is that this country was built on a Bill of Rights. These rights are known as the Constitution! The second of these rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And when some lawmaker wants to make a name for himself and try to change these rights to what he sees fit, that really pisses me off! And if this second right is ever done away with, which one of these rights comes next? Maybe the first one? Every one of these Rights are important for America to keep its freedom.
And I bet that even in Sweden, there are a lot more handguns circulating around than you think. But like lofat pointed out, its not easy to buy a handgun legally in the US. There are background checks and waiting periods. In many states including California, you have to take a handgun safety class now and pass the class along with passing a background check before you can buy one. This just makes more people want to buy them illegally. But most law abiding gun owners are responsible gun owners because of the process you have to go through to legally get one. "No one, except criminals, wants crime and mayhem".
But even if you don't agree with all this, Please read this article. If nothing else, its a little education on the matter: Why Gun Bans Don't Work -
-
samorost the safest thing to do when being robbed is rember it's just stuff you can always get more stuff. Personaly I love guns I've been shoting since I was a out of diapers (just 22s and shotguns). Target practice is a strangely meditative art a great practice in focus. I don't have the one gun I own in my apartment don't think I'll need it plus it's a rifle not really great for close range. Though I do somewhat regularly get to play with firearms and there is something I find really enjoyable about it especialy as a test of skill.
-
personally,
I like these gun's the best! -
I don't think guns should be completely banned and never have I stated that. I just think America needs even harder checks, especially on handguns which can be concealed. Just because you are mentally stable on paper with no crimes in your records doesn't mean you are a reliable gun owner. Just take some of the school shootings, many of the killers had licensed weapons. I understand that not everything can be prevented, but at least make people get approval from a psychiatrist first.
And why would a private person need an assault rifle? If they have years of experience in a rifle club or something I might understand.
I'm not educated enough in your Constitution to comment on that but I can say that bill of rights is nothing the US invented. And I know perfectly well that Sweden is not perfect and I know a lot of handguns are probably circulating around here too. Most of us will probably never encounter an illegal firearm in our life though. Heck, I can probably count the times I've seen an unholstered handgun on one hand. -
i have seen far too many guns , that i know to be legal and that i suspect to be illegal, to even count. hundreds. i live in a bad neighborhood and these kids carry them around. i have never been robbed or mugged, and these people will probably always leave me alone, but i dont leave the house without a concealed handgun in my pants. and yes i have a permit to carry it.
-
-
CommentAuthorTroutstroker
- CommentTimeMar 14th 2008 edited
Well like I've stated, its all a matter of personal choice and opinion. Depends a lot on the culture you grew up in and the upbringing you had as a child. If you grew up with guns and it was a part of your life to go hunt or going to the shooting range and shoot a few targets, you are going to have a different opinion than someone who has been sheltered from guns. People who haven't experienced the same joys that I have had by shooting a few targets with my friends and family or spending the day in the woods won't be able to understand the passion that comes with it. And how much it hurts when new laws are passed making it harder for me to enjoy life as I know it.
"Assault Rifle" is just a label. In the hands of your general gun enthusiasts, its just a rifle. This was the label put on these weapons by lawmakers and anti-gun groups trying to scare people to get behind them in their beliefs. Any weapon from a sword to a bow & arrow could be labeled as an assault weapon if its used for assault! And just because Satyr or myself may have a rifle that is labeled as an "assault rifle" does that mean we're going to go out and assault people with it? I don't think so. We buy them to enjoy and if it comes to it, for security. Just like someone might have stocks & investments geared for his/her retirement. They may not need them for 20, 30 or 40 years but when the time comes, you will be glad you have them.
Just because a gun has a certain look to it, does that make it more dangerous or the person who has it more likely to do wrong? And your idea of making it harder to get a gun legally only hurts the average law abiding citizen. If someone with bad intentions wants a gun and can't get it legally, he/she is going to get it illegally. Its not going to slow down those who want to do harm. It leaves the rest of us sitting ducks relying on our government to protect us. And if they can't get a gun, it will be something else. There are plenty of other ways to cause harm.
And your right, just because someone passes a background check doesn't make them a reliable gun owner. But the majority of them are. There are always going to be a few bad apples no matter what the case is. Like one of the most religious & holly groups in the world, the Catholic Church. How often do you hear of a priest sexually assaulting kids. Its not everyday but it does happen. Just because there are a few bad apples in the bunch doesn't mean we should abandon all hope and make it illegal to practice religion. And because thousands of people die in cars from regular accidents and drunk drivers each year, does that mean we should make it harder to buy a car. Maybe we need a psychiatrist present before we are allowed to buy a car?
I don't mean any disrespect towards any of you and I do respect your opinions and enjoy reading them. These are just my honest opinions from a different point of view on something that means a lot to me. I like the fact that we are not all the same. That would be pretty boring. -
-
"And why would a private person need an assault rifle? If they have years of experience in a rifle club or something I might understand."
Again, the primary reason for our 2nd amendment was and still is to keep our government in check. When our constitution was written, all that existed were muskets. All single shot. There were no revolvers and semi-autos. So the government had the same thing as the people as far as weapons. Clearly, that's not how it is now. I don't really thing I need to explain the details either. If we are going to keep our government in check, we need at least something that gives us a fighting chance. Not some pea shooter single shot rifle. And, by the way, everything that makes a weapon to be of the "assault" variety are strictly cosmetic. In no way, shape, or from does it make them more deadly. It "looks" meaner, so the average uneducated gun user gets scared.
As far as criminals with guns, the ones that scare me the most are the gang bangers. The only thing they know how to do is load, point, pull trigger, then reload. They grow up around them, but don't ever really learn how to use them. Half of them couldn't hit a target the size of a basketball at 50 yards. They even hold their guns sideways because they think it looks cool. This is the reason they have dribe-by-shootings and that is the reason little kids get killed.
I figured this thread would turn into a great debate as threads like this always do. but, at least it's not getting derailed, lol. Everybody is right on topic ;) And I still plan to update with photos once I add upgrades to my rifle. -
-
CommentAuthorsnuffgrinder
- CommentTimeMar 14th 2008 edited
Just a little clarification, firearm ownership is a guaranteed right of every law abiding citizen under the US Constitution, not a privilege (like driving a car) than can be legally regulated or licensed by the Federal government. The Supreme Court (wrongly) decided that this did not apply to the individual states in the late 19th century. The psychiatrists are the ones who have letting psychotics loose on the steets for decades. Why should they be allowed to determine who's competent to own a weapon? You can't even determine the number of MD"s who have addiction or other mental disorders, because they simply don't publish the numbers for the medical profession. -
-
Not to piss anyone off, but enough with the eassay's
O.K... we are all very, very educated.
bump this whole thread -
-
CommentAuthorTroutstroker
- CommentTimeMar 14th 2008
Its just an honest discussion among civilized people. If people want to openly share opinions in a OT discussion, what's the problem? You can choose not to open this thread anymore but I personally like to hear the opinions of others. Everyone has the right to make their voice heard. The great thing about this forum is you can pick and choose which discussions you want to participate in. These essay's are just answers to the questions asked by others and some things needed clarification. And if people are still asking questions then they are seeking more education. It is labeled "OT" because it is "Off Topic" and should continue as long as people want to talk about it! Different opinions make a great discussion.......And you can never be to educated. -
-
On the subject of psychiatric medicine. I think that some of the pills they give teens and children are ultimately more dangerous then guns. As far as violence where there is a will there is a way just look at the whole history of warfare. Though issue is the will to violence and causes of violence. Back to what I was saying we all rember the school shootings at culimbine (sorry about the spelling) everything got blamed from music to gun access to ect trench coats (Some schools baned trench coats after that) one thing that never got blamed was the fact that one of the kids was on a medication that one of the sideeffects is increased aggression and violence and that it was a drug never tested on teens at that point (which it is fact teens don't react to drugs the same ways adults do) which brings me to a point I think we may need guns not to protect us from the goverment but from the pharmacuteical industry.