Gun ownership
-
I read an article once about a guy who bought a tank fix it up and drove it around in town. I forget what town it was, but he used rubber tracks so he wouldn't chew up the road. Cool article. Obviously the weapons didn't work, but as a vehicle it did.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
So do criminals get worse sentences based on whether or not a gun is used?
Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#Aggravated_assault[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
There are really two sides to the gun control issue in the US... Before I start, let me make it clear that I'm not siding with CSS. He's against gun control, but he also doesn't understand the issues, or even know what the hell he's talking about. The "Right to Bear Arms" (Second Amendment): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " There are actually a couple different ways of looking at this infamous amendment. The anti-gun people generally interpret this as giving the people the right to form an organized militia (The wording is unclear). The pro-gun people think that it entitles every citizen to own a firearm. The purpose of the amendment is the key. When you look at the context, the Bill of Rights (Of which this is one component, for you non-USians), was basically a list of things that the Brits did that pissed off the founding fathers, and a few ideas on how to make sure that never happened again. They saw that an uncontrolled government was likely to become corrupt, so built in some safeguards against it. If you look at from that viewpoint, they might have been saying that the people should be armed, to protect themselves in case the government becomes the enemy. If you look at it the other way, it just says that the people should be armed to protect themselves from an invading army (Provide for the "security of a free State"). So if you see it as a safeguard on government, gun ownership is really a necessity. If 1984 became a reality (More than it already is), widespread gun ownership would be our protection against Big Brother. If you see it in the context of national defense, it's pretty much obsolete with the advent of a professional army. Now, as for safety and crime statistics... I think everyone's missing a key issue here. Why should the rule be the same everywhere? If you're in the middle of a rural area, with miles between you and your nearest neighbor, you may very well have to defend yourself against either natural predators (Animals) or criminals. I'm not saying people should be stocking their own personal armories with shelves upon shelves of military-class assault rifles, but it may make sense to own a pistol, a shotgun, or a non-automatic rifle. If you're living in the middle of a densely-populated city, the situation changes. There are dozens or hundreds of people within earshot at any given time, and there's enough of a police prese
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh, and equating gun control with racism is just bloody stupid.
You must be talking about CSS here?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh, and equating gun control with racism is just bloody stupid.
You must be talking about CSS here?
Whatever gave you that idea?[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
So do criminals get worse sentences based on whether or not a gun is used?
Yep. But once you commit to doing a crime with a deadly weapon, you are looking at very hard time. And my point was that responsible gun owners WON'T pull a gun for any reason. Idiots will, and criminals will and at that point, pulling the trigger is not that much worse than just pulling out the gun. So you have a group that knows better than to pull the gun, let alone the trigger. A group that doesn't and hasn't thought about having to pull the trigger. And a group that figures they might as well pull the trigger. You know, I don't like my chances in this scenario. 2/3 are dangerous.
-
Exactly. The more armed people you have, the less chance the unarmed people have if something bad happens. Responsible gun owners know that taking out that gun is effectively committing to killing someone. So do criminals. The difference is that criminals know if caught they are already going to get charged with using the gun for the crime, so why not do so?
Perfect argument for banning all gun ownership. :thumbsup: Certainly, since (some) of the police in the UK are routinely armed, the incidence of illegal possesion and use of weapons appears to have increased. (This is not based on any research, just on my personal impression from the media. Of course, there is bound to be some major bias in there, since the media sensationalize most things to boost interest!)
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
-
EliottA wrote:
You arm yourself for those times that don't fall under your 'most' category.
Fair enough. I'm not saying owning a gun would be useless, but I don't think that, in this type of environment, the benefits outweigh the increased risks.
EliottA wrote:
I don't know, I think proportionally there is more crime in an overcrowded area then in a sparsely populated area where you find more cause for gun ownership.
That's the point. There's a lot more crime in an overcrowded area, but you have to distinguish between the levels of violence in those crimes. Would gun ownership reduce the frequency of minor crimes? Probably. But those crimes that do occur would be more likely to escalate, and result in more serious injuries or deaths. The question you have to ask... If petty crime goes up, but violent crime goes down, isn't that an improvement? Sure, it's not a utopia by any stretch, but the mere fact that you're less likely to die on any given day seems like a benefit to me.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ah, here is where we disagree, you're reducing the amount of violent crime, but may also increase crime as a whole due to the disappearance of the crime that doesn't exist due to gun ownership as a deterrence.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
Ah, here is where we disagree, you're reducing the amount of violent crime, but may also increase crime as a whole due to the disappearance of the crime that doesn't exist due to gun ownership as a deterrence.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
Exactly. Don't get me wrong... I'm NOT supporting a nationwide ban on guns. I just think it makes sense to ban it in dense urban areas, on a case-by-case basis, where a strong police force can reduce (Not eliminate, obviously, but reduce) the additional non-violent crime.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I read an article once about a guy who bought a tank fix it up and drove it around in town. I forget what town it was, but he used rubber tracks so he wouldn't chew up the road. Cool article. Obviously the weapons didn't work, but as a vehicle it did.
SO would that be classified as an SUV? ;)
-
no. They'd call it the Wagon or something... They call theirs Chariot...[^] That tank is nto quite so bad ass, but still scary. (Edit, I was thinking of a different tank that they use to use.)
modified on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM
That's ok... IMI still makes the Desert Eagle, so that's gotta count for something. Oh, but Steyr Weapons (Austria, I believe) wins hands-down for the best assault rifle. (By "best," I of course refer only to how cool it looks, because I have zero experience firing anything but a .22 rifle outside of video games)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Whatever gave you that idea?[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I wasn't actually asking a question, merely stating the obvious.
-
I wasn't actually asking a question, merely stating the obvious.
Heh, I know... See what I linked to? :P
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
That's ok... IMI still makes the Desert Eagle, so that's gotta count for something. Oh, but Steyr Weapons (Austria, I believe) wins hands-down for the best assault rifle. (By "best," I of course refer only to how cool it looks, because I have zero experience firing anything but a .22 rifle outside of video games)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
It's all good, the Israeli's took modified Centurians and managed to have 2 trackless tanks take out something like 30 during the Yom Kippur war. If it is the AUG A1, yes it is pretty awesome for looks. The weapon is pretty damn stable, fairly accurate (but admittedly I was never a sharpshooter) and never seemed to jam. The newest one looks pretty awesome and even has it so you can just plug in your favorite scope (or any mission specific scope) into the top rail. That's pretty nice.
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
America has 20 times the gun deaths per capita of Australia. America has 18 mass shootings a year, we had 13 in total prior to our gun buyback, and none since. What part of that is 'paternalistic' or an indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
As I see it responsible gun owners, sellers, government and manufacturers are at the heart of the problems with guns. It's certainly easy enough for the government to pass a law, or an amendment in this country, to ban guns and remove them from the population, however it takes away one more thing that someone can do. It may be small and dumb to some, but for others it's important and that isn't what matters. In my opinion it means people aren't responsible enough to have them. That's a sad and pathetic thing to me. What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption? Abetting responsibility to the government or to society doesn't make us better it makes us as individuals smaller.
wolfbinary wrote:
What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption?
Well there's drugs, smoking, whoring, and gambling. Those are either tightly controlled or illegal all together in most places. You know.. the fun stuff. :laugh: Guns are more tightly regulated all the time. To buy on from a dealer you need to pass a background check and fill out the "I'm no crazy" test. It's a couple true/false questions. All the more reason to buy privately I guess. Even once you have a gun if you plan to carry with you there are FBI background checks, classes, finger printing, and more paperwork. And all this so honest people can carry one. Criminals will skip all the paperwork and just carry them. :doh:
-
I read an article once about a guy who bought a tank fix it up and drove it around in town. I forget what town it was, but he used rubber tracks so he wouldn't chew up the road. Cool article. Obviously the weapons didn't work, but as a vehicle it did.
-
America has 20 times the gun deaths per capita of Australia. America has 18 mass shootings a year, we had 13 in total prior to our gun buyback, and none since. What part of that is 'paternalistic' or an indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway. That being said like anything else it's a right you can loose. People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
-
Christian Graus wrote:
indication that owning guns should be a personal responsibility/right ?
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway. That being said like anything else it's a right you can loose. People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
thrakazog wrote:
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway.
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia. A right which was valid when the army was no better armed than the populace, but today is just a farce.
thrakazog wrote:
People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
Yes, I was considering that yesterday. Perhaps the difference in gun deaths is entirely that we make sure that it's hard for criminals to have guns, and you guys give them guns until they kill someone, then take them away ( and then they can just break into houses and look for guns ).
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
What next aren't we allowed to know or do because someone ruins it for the rest of us or some paternal government has deemed it unfit for public consumption?
Well there's drugs, smoking, whoring, and gambling. Those are either tightly controlled or illegal all together in most places. You know.. the fun stuff. :laugh: Guns are more tightly regulated all the time. To buy on from a dealer you need to pass a background check and fill out the "I'm no crazy" test. It's a couple true/false questions. All the more reason to buy privately I guess. Even once you have a gun if you plan to carry with you there are FBI background checks, classes, finger printing, and more paperwork. And all this so honest people can carry one. Criminals will skip all the paperwork and just carry them. :doh:
thrakazog wrote:
And all this so honest people can carry one.
And for what reason would someone do that ? Except for living in a country where they need to out of fear for all the other citizens with guns, I guess ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Well in Americatown we wrote it into our rule book. Second amendment spells out the right anyway.
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia. A right which was valid when the army was no better armed than the populace, but today is just a farce.
thrakazog wrote:
People with felony records and some misdemeanors are not allowed to have them under penalty of law(what that means will vary).
Yes, I was considering that yesterday. Perhaps the difference in gun deaths is entirely that we make sure that it's hard for criminals to have guns, and you guys give them guns until they kill someone, then take them away ( and then they can just break into houses and look for guns ).
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Not really. It spells out your right to form a militia.
People like to argue that. But even if the point is conceded that leaves you with having to define exactly what a "A well regulated Militia" is. How many people does it take to be a militia. 1 guy? 10 guys? a thousand? Who do you define as being in charge of said militia? City? State? Random collection of citizens? With this slippery slope most people just pay more attention to the part about "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
