LLD101 Forum Index LLD101
Low Level Dueling in 1.12
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:29 am
All times are UTC - 8
 Forum index » Off-Topic Section » Off-Topic Discussion
Pro/Anti Gun?
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 3 [34 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Views on Right to Bear Arms
Pro-Gun
68%
 68%  [ 11 ]
Anti-Gun
31%
 31%  [ 5 ]
No opinion/Undecided
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 16

Author Message
Jazziator

Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 13
Offline
0.00 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:54 am    Post subject:  

Pro Gun all the way... I believe the founding fathers had it right, too bad the bimetallism is gone. and almost non existent tariffs.. but guns are something the citizen need so we wont be taken advantage of....

Just look at keenesaw

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:28 pm    Post subject:  

Grim, "Owning a handgun doesn't make you more armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." -Jeff Cooper

When smart women conceal carry, it should be in a holster and not in a purse, which would be the first thing that is going to get taken away. Drawing a firearm takes a mere fraction of a second. If you're subdued faster than that, then it wouldn't matter if you had weapons of mass destruction under your coat. But of the off-hand you're not out of commision instantly, at least a firearm can allow you to dissolve the situation more effectively than non violence could ever possibly achieve.

Where did you hear your opinions from? They seem inaccurate compared to mine. Firearms protect more lives daily than they do to take away. Only reason you never hear about it on your local news is because the story pales incomparison to more gruesome ones.

This man has been keeping logs of daily accounts of where firearms save lives. Archived since 2003, all with sources.
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
DiPLOMAT

Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 1644
Offline
12.37 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:55 am    Post subject:  

outlaw, we clean our weapons maybe twice a week or so, jus a quick brush of the guts and barrel, nothing to indepth.... just from the dust n what not.. if we were using them as frequent as some of the others itd be more often id imagine... but we only give a real thorough cleaning if it absolutely needs it i.e dropped in mud, or before we redeploy home... this is all from an af point of view tho =)
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Grim04

Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 4197
BNet Acct/Realm: Grim04/UWNL
Offline
0.00 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:02 pm    Post subject:  

OutlawHeaven wrote:
Grim, "Owning a handgun doesn't make you more armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." -Jeff Cooper

When smart women conceal carry, it should be in a holster and not in a purse, which would be the first thing that is going to get taken away. Drawing a firearm takes a mere fraction of a second. If you're subdued faster than that, then it wouldn't matter if you had weapons of mass destruction under your coat. But of the off-hand you're not out of commision instantly, at least a firearm can allow you to dissolve the situation more effectively than non violence could ever possibly achieve.

Where did you hear your opinions from? They seem inaccurate compared to mine. Firearms protect more lives daily than they do to take away. Only reason you never hear about it on your local news is because the story pales incomparison to more gruesome ones.

This man has been keeping logs of daily accounts of where firearms save lives. Archived since 2003, all with sources.
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/


Where did I hear my opinions from? Myself? If you mean where I heard my facts from, then mainly from college courses I've taken. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, you need to consider that 95+% of women don't wear a holster. I don't care how well your statistics are, real life needs to be taken in consideration.

"Owning a handgun doesn't make you more armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." -Jeff Cooper

I agree? Confused by your quote, but if I cared enough I could go out and find some quotes.

We seem to be on the same page more or less. If guns became common and cheap (price would drop if became easily accesible), there'd be more crime. Not all criminals are in the same tiers and have access to illegal firearms.

Edit: You know I'm 100% right about the secret ninja skills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:12 pm    Post subject:  

Grim, I used that quote to imply that the simple possession of a firearm doesn't do much, but rather it is the possession and knowledge of how to use it that makes a difference.

In the United States at least, there is a direct correlation between the availability of firearms, and the amount of violent crime. In the US, more guns = less crime.

Take a look at Washington D.C., one of the strictest places in the country that has pretty much banned all firearms and they have one of the highest violent crime rates, while Vermont has no regulation or restrictions and has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Martial arts is fine, but there is a reason we no longer to use fists, stones, swords, or bows to fight when there are firearms around. Most martial arts take years of mastering to become effective and applicable while firearms only take a fraction of that time.

Where is your 95% coming from anyways? Most intelligent people, conceal carry or open carry in holsters anyways. In regards to women, there are plenty of articles written by others that specifically detail the pros and cons of carrying weapons in a purse, one of which you stated. But purses are not the only places to conceal.



Let me ask you a question, if the situation came down to it, would you rather be of sound fitness and mind and... armed, or unarmed?

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Jerkazoid


Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2902
BNet Acct/Realm: wscl
Offline
4.86 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:43 pm    Post subject:  

totally have to retract my statements about women

Amy Bishop, biologist denied tenure shoots and kills 3 and wounds 3
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123665070

and lets not forget responsible 15 year old girls who need to teach each other a lesson by kicking some head in front of worthless security guards
http://www.kirotv.com/news/22521498/detail.html

well assuming once you pass the screening you could never loose your temper or get into an argument as Colbert does a great bit on Creigh Deeds Life time hunting license for children under 2.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/262597/january-26-2010/tip-wag---creigh-deeds---scarebear-trail-companion
"You cant fail a background check if you DON'T have a background!"
flawless victory Deeds, was "G G" though.
and dammit you dumbocrat liberals 2nd amendment rights start at conception! fetal guns for ALL!

gun laws just keep responsible people from protecting themselves from the crazies...analogous and sarcastic argument. Once u start meth or Coke it doesn't change the biological process of brain chemistry in regard to the regulation of reward mechanisms. it should be legal so that responsible people can do speed/coke too

pro gun individuals mention there is Evil in this world. and even a pro gun advocate can agree there will always be that evil and with it comes (some) cunning intelligence and/or simple rage, a lack of empathy, as well as a disregard for long term rational consequences... blah blah blah
So knowing FULL well evil will never go away, what happens to violent crime once everyone has a hand gun? Does it vanish? or does crime simply become more lethal and brutal.
Wouldn't it escalate and simply become the norm to have more guns or just shoot first?

i always go back to my one root issue.. if everyone starts to have guns, then i have to buy one too.. and guns are fucking expensive! (hmm... possible stock investment though.. note to self: check on gun NYSE listings every time gun legislation comes up)

_________________
Magic missile doesn't kill people, wizards who cast magic missile kill people.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Grim04

Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 4197
BNet Acct/Realm: Grim04/UWNL
Offline
0.00 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:31 pm    Post subject:  

OutlawHeaven wrote:
Take a look at Washington D.C., one of the strictest places in the country that has pretty much banned all firearms and they have one of the highest violent crime rates, while Vermont has no regulation or restrictions and has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Let me ask you a question, if the situation came down to it, would you rather be of sound fitness and mind and... armed, or unarmed?


One does not always equal the other.

I'm going to step away from this conversation, since anyone too far on any one side of a topic will not see logic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 pm    Post subject:  

I just hate it that when one irresponsible person makes a boo boo, it reflects so poorly on everyone else. I would love to see the world where every law abiding, responsible citizen is required to keep at a rifle or shotgun at home. Switerland already does this and their violent crime rates are very low compared to other countries. If someone decided to break into my home silently and murder me in my sleep, I hope that I'm good enough friends with my neighbors, and that they can hear the gunshots and at the very least stop the intruder from ever doing it again if I'm unable to do so myself. Take a look at the LA riots where the only stores that WERENT looted were the ones with owners on the roofs with shotguns and rifles.

Firearms are tools. They are powerful tools that can both save and end lives and must be used responsibly. They are not magical inanimate objects that suddenly turn their users into bloodthirsty rapist murderers. Lack of judgement or aggression was probably there to begin with, regardless of the weapon itself. If someone decides to get drunk/drugged up enough to go on a murderous rampage, then that lack of judgement is shown through the alcohol/drug misuse, way before firearms are even introduced in the situation.

From country to country, there are different availability of firearms to violent crime rates. For example Japan as low amounts of firearms and low violent crime, Mexico has high amounts of firearms and high violent crime. But within the US, it is proven that high availability of firearms does indeed reduce crime. This is evidenced by skyrocketing violent crime rates after past firearm bans, as well as the reduction of crime as these bans expired or were repealed. You don't have to believe me you can look it up for yourself.

Firearms are not expensive, except for certain models and fully automatics. You can buy rifles and surplus ammo <100$, shotguns for <$300. Cars can easily run thousands yet they kill exponentially more per year than firearms. In fact, I believe malpractice and drowning result in more deaths/year than firearms.

I've said it before, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing. You may feel safe thinking you and your loved ones may never be a victim of violent crime, but I would much rather rest knowing that I can at least protect myself and my loved ones should the situation arises.

911 responses take time, and when seconds matter, police are just minutes away.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Jerkazoid


Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2902
BNet Acct/Realm: wscl
Offline
4.86 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:39 pm    Post subject:  

just to follow up on the news with some court facts etc

the 2008 DC hand gun fiasco is the Heller decision. here
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
but this is a FEDERAL right, not state

the justices did not quite address the states rights. combination of 14th and then 10th amendment. This is just about to start
- McDonald v Chicago certiorari was granted on Sept. 30, 2009 which will start march 2nd 2010, yes thats right very soon! states involvement with the 2nd! i have no idea how the justices will interpret this language but it's juicy enough for gamblers to make bets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

ca and NY restrict Nunchuks for instance, but under the 2nd lawyers can argue this violates an individuals rights
2009 Maloney v Cuomo
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html
that will have its outcome change after McDonald v Chicago 2010

(opinion) i argue that the context of the 2nd, the prefatory clause places a contextual restriction on the operative clause. Founders were smart enough to not waste our time with a contextual statement about state security+ militia when what they "meant" is individuals rights.
so i think it is a load of crap just from a founders stand point to argue what they "meant" was individual defense. To be fair all the govt "infringes" upon this "right to bare arms" constantly.. so the 2nd is used like a guideline anyway.

the term "Arms" is described as non-military, so there is a trickle down list as technology progresses. So why does a hand gun fit this list? when? under what merit? and that is ofc legal magic and tactics of debate/arbitration, Stare decisis et non quieta movere after all can be challenged with just a bit of spirited dissent as outlines by justice Johnson and the wonderful new corporations freedom of speech decision. My point is, it is arbitrated, so when people say you have rights to a hand gun... not really. you are not born with a gun, and you do not grow one, you have to buy it and supply it.

it is not quite a right. its more like a privilege and as you get lower in society (meaning away from govt) you have more and more restrictions based on where you are and the private controls around those locations.

OutlawHeaven wrote:
within the US, it is proven that high availability of firearms does indeed reduce crime.

dont buy that research for a second (on EITHER side) for seveal reasons. This type of scientific result requires the impossible, a control. There is no way to make a hypothesis and then test it against a control with regard to varying # of guns in carefully measured people, carefully measured lives in carefully measures environments. just impossible.

it's like stock analysis. It isn't enough to say what happens with a correlation, you must take the hypothesis and then gather data that supports it and in science it is also important to say what the data is missing.
demographics/area lifestyle, population distribution, psychological pressures... And for every data set that suggest restrictions increase violence another suggests the opposite, (The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, August 1998 - Volume 45 - Issue 2 - pp 263-267) that level of contradiction does not bode well for science (though i do love me some science)

but most of all, Even if it could be shown unequivocally that giving everyone hand guns would raise the violence by X%, gun rights citizens as individuals will just feel instinctively safer in control of a gun. (the same is true in the opposite i'm sure)
basic instincts.

those favoring less govt regulation trust in themselves and under trust others. i am certain many people just feel better having the gun, and to hell with what anyone says.
outlaw your final point: "but I would much rather rest knowing that I can at least protect myself and my loved ones should the situation arises" personifies my above statment

you CAN protect you/your family. you have the right in law to defend yourself, your argument is essentially "i can't defend my self without a gun bc criminals have guns" so i think this is a balance/escalation argument, bc then once you have hand guns, what about the freedom to holster it on your hip for speed?

_________________
Magic missile doesn't kill people, wizards who cast magic missile kill people.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:20 pm    Post subject:  

Lots a reading, intriguing stuff, and while I do admit some of it is beyond my scope of understanding within a reasonable time, I'll see what I can do.

I believe the first and foremost basis for the 2nd was the ability for people to have access to arms and form a militia should their government become a tyrannical one. Additionally, it allows for people of this nation to repel any homeland invasion should there be one. For a nation built on freedom it is ironic that there has been so much conflict and attempted control on this single aspect.

For reference see this picture someone nicely made.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6100/1246773553820.jpg

Its very ironic that motor vehicle accidents, malpractice, and drowning to name a few, far outrank firearms as reasons for death. You can possess and use firearms well before you can possess and use a vehicle, yet you have exponentially more car accidents than firearm accidents.

People are not born with many things, but the 2nd affords us the right of self preservation in any form. The founding fathers could not have predicted mass motorized transportation (hence driving is a privilege, not a right), but they were clever to make sure citizens had access to arms for reasons we all know, whether they be black powered or modern guns, or years from now lightsabers. So when people say I have the right to bear arms, I have the right to use these arms for defense, sport, hobby, work, or the case of an oppressive government or foreign invasion, militia. However I do believe the first few are far more likely than the last.

I believe firearms protect people more than they are used against them. This is coming from both personal experience, and general experience with others. I cannot tell you how many times the simple act of brandishing a firearm let alone using it, can deter criminals. And in cases where firearms were used, I am willing to bet that more than just the criminals would be hurt or dead.

People should have an inherent distrust of their government as soon as they start limiting our rights and freedoms. History has showed us that the first sign of a tyrannical government is the mass disarming of citizens. Look what happened to the people in Germany once Hitler was in power.

The sad truth is, criminals will always prey on the weak using whatever advantage they can, whether it be weapons or numbers or both. Being prepared myself is only leveling the playing field. In most states, generically speaking, the use of deadly force is lawful if you are in an immediate life-threatening situation that would not be alleviated without the use of deadly force. In fact, people who are in those situations are going to find that less than lethal self-defense alternatives are not going to cut it anyways. Hence we have the Castle Doctrine. Why should people be afraid in their own homes? Why should people be afraid walking on the streets?

Let me ask you a question, can you think of any reason for responsible law abiding citizens NOT to be armed in knowledge and firepower? People argue that it'll be like the old west with mass shootouts in the streets, but in all our time that never has happened. People will argue, “Will somebody please think of the children!”, when most school shootings happen in supposed “gun-free zones.”

The only “shootout” I can recall at the moment is the LA bank heist gone wrong shootout. But that was only two perpetrators. And they were using illegally modified weapons. And it only went on as long as it did because the police weren't armed ENOUGH to stop them.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Jerkazoid


Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2902
BNet Acct/Realm: wscl
Offline
4.86 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:12 am    Post subject:  

OutlawHeaven wrote:

can you think of any reason for responsible law abiding citizens NOT to be armed in knowledge and firepower?
I can think of 0 reason a responsible citizen should not have a firearm. But using the word responsible connotes no issue, the only counter argument is who is responsible & how is that quantified? and that is a part of the screen process.

to be clear. i'm not anti-gun, i'm really more of an anti pro-gun-hardliner

here are some new developments: guns are now allowed in parks
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-parks-guns22-2010feb22,0,3561947.story

as for the latest cases of shootouts, there is Amy Bishop (VA), that was the last big media story. (this month)

OutlawHeaven wrote:
Lots a reading, intriguing stuff, and while I do admit some of it is beyond my scope of understanding within a reasonable time, I'll see what I can do.

just keep an eye on that court issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
is the big development on fed vs state control and it is going to start very soon.
post-Heller cases,....have argued that the 2nd Amendment, in addition applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called Selective Incorporation.

_________________
Magic missile doesn't kill people, wizards who cast magic missile kill people.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:32 pm    Post subject:  

Currently, the ease or difficulty of obtaining firearms changes depending on where you are. It is important to know the laws of the state you are in to avoid inadvertently committing a felony.

Usually, the most common regulations are the instant background check, wait time, permits, and registration. Instant background checks are nice. Wait time is annoying, but I believe it was imposed to limit on impulse buying. Permits and registration are annoying as well since it serves no real purpose. Its not like criminals are going to register their guns anyways. I don't recall a single court case where gun registration was instrumental in a conviction either. In fact, history showed us that registration led to confiscation of firearms shortly thereafter as well.

I think the first step in defining who is responsible enough to own a firearm, is to pass a background check, and show you can demonstrate the safe handling and use of that firearm, whether it be through a formal safety course or examination. It is far more practical than putting an arbitrary age limit and filling out paperwork.

Believe it or not, I used to be anti-gun several years back, but that view slowly shifted to where I am now. I think it had to do with an irrational fear of the unknown, and how the media tends to portray things in a negative light. As I grew more accustomed to them, and learned more about them, my fear for firearms shrank while my respect for them grew. It is indeed a fun hobby.

As for open/concealed carry in public, I have mixed feelings toward that. I'm all for concealed carry, but open carry is questionable, especially around people who will be inherently paranoid about some dude with a gun walking his dog. Unless in areas where open carry is socially accepted, you're just going to give yourself more trouble than it is worth, even if you are within your legal rights. There are countless stories of people phoning 911 and notifying local authorities about some dude open carrying in the park, only to have police arrive and either show their incompetence by not knowing the law, or just leaving.

Recently there was a school shooting where luckily someone was able to tackle the gunman down. That's cool and all but had the shooter been more competent or had the savior been a tad unlucky, going up against an armed man is a foolish thing to do with sides tipped against your favor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-colorado-shooting25-2010feb25,0,5461391.story

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Jerkazoid


Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2902
BNet Acct/Realm: wscl
Offline
4.86 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:09 am    Post subject:  

Just to continue, developments on McDonald v Chicago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz6Qns7uUfAAvvLl1R6dY5oGQcOgD9E6JQE02

some added reporting/comments
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/27/national/w055140S69.DTL

_________________
Magic missile doesn't kill people, wizards who cast magic missile kill people.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:57 pm    Post subject:  

Was about to post here about it. Hard to find unbiased summaries.

Transcript:
http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf


-Edit- I read this transcript a couple days back. My opinion is that the representative for the respondents seem to be bringing up points on the losing side of the Heller case. While these court discussions have high visibility, it actually has little impact on the outcome of the case. In any event we'll be hearing the verdict in about 6 months time.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
OutlawHeaven
Bermanently Panned


Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 2273
BNet Acct/Realm: OutlawHeaven/OutlawHvn @USEast@Azeroth@AIM
Offline
12.23 Silvarrr

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:44 pm    Post subject:  

Can't believe 6 months has gone by so quickly. Was browsing old topics and I came across this. Totally forgotten about it.

Looks like the courts ruled in favor of Mcdonald. I guess a city-wide ban of handguns is indeed unconstitutional. Now I wonder if in 6 months time if we will ever see any nationwide change in our current gun laws.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 3 [34 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Off-Topic Section » Off-Topic Discussion
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1113s ][ Queries: 52 (0.0088s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]