Controversial Topic: Weapon Ownage How do you feel?

[Plenoptic 0]

Also something i forgot to mention.
What if someone i knew starting annoying the hell out of me so i decide to shoot and kill him? With this law in place couldn't i just "claim" to have used it in self defence when in fact it was down to cold blood?

You can claim all you want but you'll have a long time at court. If you don't have anything on you to prove to them that you were defending yourself it'd be pretty hard, especially if you were in a public place with witnesses.

People already have guns for self defense and ya there are a lot of problems, but even if you make guns illegal they will still be used to kill because killing already is illegal, same with robbing, and what not. You can't win in this situation really. Guns are very serious yes, but probably safe for people to keep in the long run.

[hitmanblood 0]

I have nothing against weapons owning however I would like to see strict control of weaponry because those weapons which are under control I want to say for which people take licneses and so on are not actually dangerous but those weapons out of control which authorities don't know they exist are actually dangerous and most people killed today are killed with a bullet from such a weapon. So legalisation is ok but with strict control in place.

[arnz 0]

I haven't got much to say on this, but if you're gonna own a weapon, some sort of license and some training would have to be required. IIRC most countries require that a gun owner will have to acquire a gun license to own the weapon.

[Watermonkey 0]

Mark my words: If you have the ability to acquire firearms and ammo, stock up now. These two things along with gold and silver and other "real" property will be the only things one can barter with when the "federal reserve note" issued by the most indebted government on Earth looses it's value much more. The USD (That's United States Dollar) recently, like this week, fell to an all-time low against the Euro and there's no bottom in site as its fall continues. The value of the USD is at 1.5 cents compared to a dollar in 1913. Think about that for a second. At least Canada has actual value backing its currency like mining and oil/ natural gas. The U.S. has less and less and hasn't had tangible backing since the government removed the gold and silver backing a long long time ago. Was it in the 50's? I don't recall now. The Federal Reserve is a private family-run banking cartel that pretty much runs the world's banks, and, as long as people believe their money has value, they hold all the power of the planet's people. As soon as, or if people ever wake up and deny them that power, all the paper fiat currency they've issued in the world will be completely worthless, except for starting fires. The United States government is intentionally devaluing the currency in order to make the North American Union more palatable to the populations of US, Canada, and Mexico. Once the union is created and the U.S. constitution, arguably the most important and powerful government document in the modern world, is voided, then the Amero will be the new currency and all means of self-defense will also be outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns -and I'll be one of them! I'll never let my defense be left to the hands of the police, because the police are rarely right there when you need them; they only show up to record the history of events. They should be called "armed historians" for all they're worth! When that time comes, when firearms are outlawed, there will automatically be some 50 million armed criminal class of the population, a larger number of armed people then any army on earth! A vast majority of these people are qualified snipers from their hunting skills and a very high number of them will have been trained by the military. There will be bloodshed and lives lost, but as Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots now and then." (or something like that) The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America, if one actually looks at the Federalist Papers and correspondence between the signers of this vastly important document, was always intended as a method of maintaining arms in the civilian ranks equal to the arms in the ranks of the Army. They were specific because they'd just overthrown the oppressive British Empire because the civilian population had the same arms as the enemy. Thus they realized the unequivical importance of maintaining an even battle field. They also understood the tendancy of any government to become tyranical so they attempted to make it clear that a "well regulated" malitia be maintained. "Well regulated" in the day simply meant that the arms were in good and proper working order and that the people who owned them knew well how to use them. Any able-bodied male of a certain age range (most places 17-40 years or so of age) is automatically a member of their state's unorganized militia and could, by law, be called up to fight in the defense of their state. That's today, not two hundred years ago. Read your state's constitution. You may just be a member of the unorganized militia and not even know it!

 

So, Mike (and others who may agree), just because you don't NEED a rifle capable of firing a bullet a half inch in diameter over two miles accurately, doesn't mean the need won't EVER exist! It's a fun sport (the only roll the .50 BMG rifles have ever had to date in the civilian population) and it's one that just might save your butt one day! There's no way for you to predict the "necessity" of a particular firearm based upon it's cycle rate, the amount of noise it emits, or the size of projectile it expels, but if I were a betting man, and I am in this case, I'd bet there's always a need to prepare for the worst, and hope for the best! I can't see the harm in that, because there's no harm to see. Walk around with a large rifle and chances are excellent "the man" won't mess with you. Walk around with your blankey, sucking your thumb and asking people if they've seen yo momma, and I'd bet they'll mess you up good!

Edited May 3, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[saga 0]

Just imagine every person carrying a gun. With one stupid argument anybody can kill anybody. My point is having a weapon that can kill effectively and effortless is not just a bad idea but the most stupid and worst idea of all. Do you think having a weapon can stop u from getting rub? It will not, ironically it will get you killed. Robbers will shoot you instantly not declaring that they are going to rob u because you might have a weapon. or perhaps a simple argument of two 15 yrs old teenagers resulted into gun battle which killed not just themselves but including the by-standers around them when the gun battle erupted, since every one has a weapon then everybody start shooting at each other.one reason why genocide or tribal wars are devastating in some rural parts of the world becuase of the introductino of guns and bullets. Tribal wars is common but becuase back then guns are not yet available the loss of life is in minimal maybe 10 or 5 a year in a tribe but with the availability of guns and ammos the conflict is escalated to a point that a single man can kill as many as 10 or more person in one instance. Tribal wars are in rural area has change forever becuase of guns. Now a 14 or 15 years old can kill as many as he wants becuase of guns, back then at that age they were just spectators of tribal wars.guns are tools for killing. remember that.

[Misanthrope 0]

guns are tools for killing. remember that.

I think you have inadvertently made the point for gun ownership. Guns are tools, nothing more. They are inanimate objects that are incapable of making arbitrary decisions. Yes, there's this little something known as the human element that actually has the last word on whether or not a crime is commited. But you wouldn't know this listening to the mainstream media, where mad stories of guns "going off" run rampant. Last time I checked, a gun was an inert piece of metal, not unlike that knife I use to chop vegetables for my lentil soup. Ever heard any stories of knives attacking people? No, you won't - because the Powers that Be are not out to ban knives, even though they also used as "tools for killing." No - they want to take away our guns because they know they are the only thing standing between the free people of this earth and total government tyranny.

[saga 0]

I think you have inadvertently made the point for gun ownership. Guns are tools, nothing more. They are inanimate objects that are incapable of making arbitrary decisions. Yes, there's this little something known as the human element that actually has the last word on whether or not a crime is commited. But you wouldn't know this listening to the mainstream media, where mad stories of guns "going off" run rampant. Last time I checked, a gun was an inert piece of metal, not unlike that knife I use to chop vegetables for my lentil soup. Ever heard any stories of knives attacking people? No, you won't - because the Powers that Be are not out to ban knives, even though they also used as "tools for killing." No - they want to take away our guns because they know they are the only thing standing between the free people of this earth and total government tyranny.

let us imagine a situation where to person wants to beat each other..

first without a gun.
well in this situation they will just throw punches at each other. it hurts but it doesnt kill, maybe it does but they have to be black belt in martial art to really kill each other. so they will just end up laying in the ground tired from throwing punches a few broken ribs or perhaps a broken nose.

now lets escalate the situation a little bit. giving both of them a gun. what do you think will happen? in a matter of seconds they will kill each other and other people around them that passes by accidentally.

so what do you think?

if you live in my country you will understand why it is a bad. in rural areas if one member of the family is killed by another family in most cases they will not file complaints to the authority. if they would file complaint then the suspect will be in prison whch means they willl have little chance of avenging thier death. since having an unauthorized gun is punishable by impresonment for at least 6 years the conflict most of the time are settled by diplomacy.

if it you want to own a gun to overthrow a governement then thats a different story, but if you want to own a gun to feel safe, believe me you are not safe. the irony is you having a gun will become the problem of the society instead of its protector becuase in a sense you feel powerful and be tempted to exploit ur leverage againts those who do not have.

[cangor 0]

I'm not sure anybody's said this yet because I don't have time to read all three pages of posts, but I definately believe gun ownership should be allowed without much restriction. The reason is that, besides it's just a right, when they took guns away in australia, crime went up 600 percent. If people want to take away guns to lower crime, it's just not going to work.

[Misanthrope 0]

let us imagine a situation where to person wants to beat each other.now lets escalate the situation a little bit. giving both of them a gun. what do you think will happen?

A martial artist would argue that the human hand can be a deadly weapon, and he would be right. Given your logic, we should outlaw human appendages. Taken to it's illogical conclusion we should also outlaw doctors, because they kill more people than guns and automobiles combined.

if you live in my country you will understand why it is a bad. in rural areas

If you're speaking of the Philippines, I've done a fair amount of travel in Mountain Province and have friends there. By the way, they are all armed and intend to stay that way for obvious reasons. I myself live in a rural area, and am at least an hour away from the help of law enforcement. I believe in self-sufficiency and will use whatever means necessary to defend myself. Anyone who stands in the way of my right to defend myself will hear about it. This is why gun "control" is such a controversial topic. It's literally a matter of life and death.

if you want to own a gun to feel safe, believe me you are not safe.

Oh yeah? Than why are cops armed? Why do stories abound of little old ladies who shoot down criminals who break into their sanctuary of their homes? Do you really think these little old ladies could defend themselves any other way? Do you really think the police would arrive in time to save them? Do you comprehend that criminals will continue to collect and use guns even if they are outlawed? I will not surrender my right to bear arms because some people have no self control or can't pull their naive heads out of the sand.

[osknockout 0]

I think people should be able to own guns, though there are definite reasons to ban such weapons. However, that is not the issue of this post, but rather the belief of some people that to render gun ownership illegal is to end the problem.There is a major blackmarket for assault weapons in this country; you'd be surprised how easily a gun can be composed without trouble. Mere tubes of spare metal can easily be converted into simple handguns, and even more complex weapons like sawed-off shotguns and AK-47s. There are people who know how to do this and they will definitely go into business if any ban is passed. Even worse, criminals will be the first too seek them out. They already do, but that's beside the point. The point is our government, in order to enforce such a ban would need to confiscate any gun-making material and hunt down gun-makers. They cannot, and therefore should not pass such bans, which only deprive law abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves. It's common sense.And no, I am not NRA.

[Revan 0]

Sorry for reviving a dead topic, but I thought I'd post my thoughts here rather than start a new post. The right to bear arms was introduced in order to overthrow tyranny in the 18th century and has no relevance to our modern world. We don't need guns to stop our country from becoming uncontrollable; we have many other ways to do that. To see events like the Columbine and Virgina Tech massacre happen due to lack of gun control is simply disgusting. Do all proponents of gun control think that these events are worth their rights? The loss of human life in order to maintain the right to protect oneself is a paradox. What's the necessity of protection if the attacker lacks a firearm?

[Tweek 0]

Well, im kind of half and half, ya know, I think we should be allowed to Own Guns wepons blah blah blah as said in the Fifth Amendment (in the U.S) (I think its fifth) But I also think there should be limits xP, I dont want people walking about wit Assault Riffles blasting each other down.

[KansukeKojima 0]

The only weapons I have are some Samurai Swords, and a Ninja Sword. But don't fear, they are crappy replica weapons that can't even cut through a rope... I don't really care if people own weapons, as long as they make the choice to use them properly. (Ex: a rifle should be used for hunting, not threatening someone to get off your property).

[strange-garden 0]

We have loadsssssss of weapons. My parents are incredibly good at archery, I do knife and axe throwing and I love air rifles. However, I don't think semi-automatics should be legal. There's really only two good reasons for having guns...Deffense, and sport, and there, what's stopping you from using an air rifle?