Gun Advocacy 37 replies

Please wait...

random_soldier1337

I live on Gaming Forums

452 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,039 Posts

5 Threads

#1 2 years ago

It's just another thing, not being part of the west, I don't understand. I'm not really here to talk about gun control or debate (yet) since I don't think I'd ever be convinced guns should/could be present in any form of proper civilzation/society, at least in the hands of every average Joe. I simply wish to hear the reasons you or someone you know thinks it's okay for firearms or for that matter any form of sophisticated and most likely lethal weaponry to be available relatively easily to the general population. Let me affirm that does not mean I'm discussing the effect of the actual availability i.e. why not since we can't stop it BUT something along the lines of why gun advocates feel threatened when someone or something comes along to stifle their access to such resources.




Lord Rumpuss V VIP Member

Follow A Paranoid

186,730 XP

25th November 2006

0 Uploads

18,518 Posts

0 Threads

#2 2 years ago

Self defense. Unless you live in a crime free utopia then that's what's it for.

Oh yeah and to be able to protect oneself from tyrannical governments and invaders by offering armed resistance.

The one with the tyrant scenario is closest to me since part of my childhood was under a dictator and the second part is because it pains me to see an officially non-existent Tibet. (As far as the chines government is concerned.)


Signature brought to you by Carl's Jr.



c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#3 2 years ago

"Lord Rumpuss V"Self defense. Unless you live in a crime free utopia then that's what's it for. [/quote]

The self defence argument doesn't really hold much water, it's been shown statistically time and time again that you are in more danger of your own gun than you are of someone else. It also makes people feel they can take on criminals who are trying to rob them or other such petty crimes which often leads to escalated level of risk. The best form of self defence is to offer resistance or to run away. I would also add that there are dozens of examples of nations that have outlawed firearms that aren't crime free utopia's but citizens continue to function without fear of dying everyday.

[quote="Lord Rumpuss V"] Oh yeah and to be able to protect oneself from tyrannical governments and invaders by offering armed resistance.

The one with the tyrant scenario is closest to me since part of my childhood was under a dictator and the second part is because it pains me to see an officially non-existent Tibet. (As far as the chines government is concerned.)

This also doesn't hold much water either. Modern armies would find almost no resistance from a handful of people owning handguns or even rifles, even if the entire populace had a hand gun and rifle each. Unless part of the self defence program in each peoples house includes shoulder mounted anti-aircraft weapons, a stash of IED's and RPG's and counter-electronic warfare equipment, any form of household "self defence" weapons will provide no resistance to either a tyrannical government or a foreign army.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concerns surrounding living under a tyrannical government but the best defence for that is to hold politicians to count for their decisions. The best way of doing that is to use your vote and to get involved in politics in general.    




Lord Rumpuss V VIP Member

Follow A Paranoid

186,730 XP

25th November 2006

0 Uploads

18,518 Posts

0 Threads

#4 2 years ago

"Lt. Comm Breslin"This also doesn't hold much water either. Modern armies would find almost no resistance from a handful of people owning handguns or even rifles, even if the entire populace had a hand gun and rifle each. Unless part of the self defence program in each peoples house includes shoulder mounted anti-aircraft weapons, a stash of IED's and RPG's and counter-electronic warfare equipment, any form of household "self defence" weapons will provide no resistance to either a tyrannical government or a foreign army.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concerns surrounding living under a tyrannical government but the best defence for that is to hold politicians to count for their decisions. The best way of doing that is to use your vote and to get involved in politics in general.    

Seriously are you lecturing me on my personal history? Lot's of things can be cooked up by any budding tyrant as long as he gets his power base consolidated. (Turkey is the latest example of this) now for my personal history part on things: Ferdinand Marcos's first step was to confiscate all guns (Both Legal and otherwise) on the basis that local warlords we're just using people with guns as rank and file for their private armies, then he started concocting "incidents" to create an atmosphere of anarchy. Mendiola bombing and  that so called assassination attempt on one of his cabinet members (supposedly at the time by his political opponents) that has now come to light as a conspiracy cooked up by him and his closest allies to abolish both houses of the senate and congress. And with his cronies holding key positions in the military no one was left to oppose him. 

And now for the modern army shit. Who says anything about fighting a straight stand up war with an occupying force? A guerilla war is just as much damaging (Morally as well as economically) to an occupation army no matter how modern it is. Just ask America and it's middle eastern woes. Just ask Russia when it was dicking around in Afghanistan.


Signature brought to you by Carl's Jr.



Barbas

Hound dog

50 XP

2nd May 2016

0 Uploads

440 Posts

0 Threads

#5 2 years ago

An armed group of citizens versus a properly trained military force would be a tragic massacre, if the bloody reprisals of the Warsaw and Holland uprisings are anything to go by. Even without such reactions, I'd rather not have what happened in Ireland come to a country in which I live. I'm more convinced the best defense against a tyrannical government is a well-informed and educated public. That's harder, but once you've already deteriorated to the point of living in a war zone, you might as well bail.

I'd like to be able to attain a license for shooting on a range, though. I don't see why that's not feasible. We have a marginally too fearful approach to firearms, I think; proper education about firearms and their safe handling is surely far more valuable to Bob Public than simply treating them as if they're evil and liable to go off at any minute.


Calvin%2B%2526%2BHobbes%2Bsnow%2Bforts.jpg



Superfluous Curmudgeon VIP Member

AOE2 Addict

11,741 XP

22nd December 2007

0 Uploads

794 Posts

9 Threads

#6 2 years ago

Because 'Merica, baby!

Ok, so I'd take a slightly more middle-ground/I'm not really sure what the best thing to do is approach to the issue. I'm not sure about the statistics, but by offering the general public guns only through a rigorous background check, and possibly some mandatory training, I think this could reduce the number of shootings and accidents that occur. An effective program would require one-on-one character judgement to determine whether someone's personality is stable, whether or not they are idiots when handling firearms, etc. Admittedly, this is probably much more utopian than realistic, as when dealing with a nation the size of America, implementing such a large program effectively would be quite the challenge.

But on the other hand, removing guns entirely from the populace is not something I'd like to see either. In cases where an enemy invasion occurs, or the government becomes completely tyrannical, I think I somewhat agree with Rumpass. A war of attrition is much more effective when the invaded country has many armed, skilled citizens. But this requires some competence on the part of the armed citizens. A combat situation is much different than shooting at the range. But it'd be much better than nothing. Switzerland has a mandatory 2-years of military service for all citizens (with some exceptions). I'm tempted to advocate that sort of approach, because it would give the majority of the populace some degree of discipline as well as knowledge - it would be beneficial to the people, and it would also give you a hastily trained army of several million people.




Lord Rumpuss V VIP Member

Follow A Paranoid

186,730 XP

25th November 2006

0 Uploads

18,518 Posts

0 Threads

#7 2 years ago

The lesson of Tibet should never be lost on anyone.

Bunch of pacifist Buddhist who would not even hurt a fly just peacefully co-existing with it's neighbors. Making it a prime target for Chinese thugs who then just march in  like it's gay pride day. 

And they had the ideal terrain to wage a guerilla war IE: tanks are next to useless way up there and those high winds make chopper support spotty. 

Too late for armed rebellion now since China has most of the western powers by the balls.


Signature brought to you by Carl's Jr.



Aeia

Live with honor, die for justice!

90 XP

3rd May 2016

0 Uploads

181 Posts

1 Threads

#8 2 years ago

People should have the freedom to own guns because ... the onus of proving gun dangers/disadvantages lays on the gun-control individuals. You don't go around asking: should people have the right to own and keep cars? Yes, why the hell not?

As to the argument that guns kill people, well, yes they help a person kill another person quickly. But so do cars. In fact a person purposefully hit by a car would have a greater probability of dying than a person purposefully shot (by a handgun). Arguing on these grounds, swords and other hand-to-hand weapons make even a faster slice-work of someone. Check out the ability of cold steel swords in cutting through thick bones and viscera. And they don't even misfire or require bullets. Then there is archery. A powerful crossbow (anything 70lb+) is easily able to kill a person with just one strike, within a range of 100 feet. And they are far more accurate than handguns, too.

When someone is determined to kill someone, they will do it, no matter they live in a pro-gun society or no-gun society. Talk about jack the ripper.




Superfluous Curmudgeon VIP Member

AOE2 Addict

11,741 XP

22nd December 2007

0 Uploads

794 Posts

9 Threads

#9 2 years ago

If your aim is to kill lots of people, a gun will usually give the most bang for your buck. A car/truck rampage is a bit more hit-or-miss, and where you can rampage is a lot more limited. A sword requires strength and training (whereas most people are decent enough shots at close range with a hand gun). A crossbow is too slow to get more than a couple shots in before the assailant is jumped.




Aeia

Live with honor, die for justice!

90 XP

3rd May 2016

0 Uploads

181 Posts

1 Threads

#10 2 years ago

That is correct. But if you do the math of how many people are killed each year worldwide in mass shooting incidents, versus people dying in road accidents, you would know there isn't even any comparison. Heck! A single plane crash kills far more people than several mass shootings combined.

Also, I am not supporting availability of guns like groceries. A background check and a character check in the person's neighborhood/college/workplace should be mandatory before he/she is licensed to keep a gun.

And if a nutjob doesn't find any guns for his/her bloody fantasies, he will turn a serial killer and kill equal or more people. Worse still, serial killers are far more difficult to track and arrest than mass shooters.

Swords don't require too much training. One week of one-handed sword (machete, talwar, cutlass, wakizashi etc) training is enough for anyone to take on three unarmed people simultaneously.

Terrorists (nutjobs renowned for their penchant to kill people in large numbers) almost always resort to using IEDs and blow people up, instead of shooting them. If you pick up the records, you will find out that almost all of large scale terrorist killings have been accomplished through explosives, and not guns.