Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Personally, I don't see why civilians should need guns. I think they should only be used for military and the police. Everyday people just don't need them.

As for protection, that's a load of hooey. All I need is a good crowbar...

What about shooting sports? I happen to enjoy a good afternoon at the shooting range.

What about hunting?

Those are a couple of good "non-protection" reasons for civillians to own guns.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I think that reduction of gun-related crimes would be worth giving up hunting and shooting sports. Or maybe that's just me.

Okay, here's a thought. Where I live, there are folks who live many miles from a town or city. In the fall they hunt for Elk, Deer, and small game and put what they hunt in a freezer(s) for the winter. Believe it or not, during a harsh winter, this really makes it easier than driving many miles and risking bad roads and mountain passes. I’m for gun control actually, but there are still parts of the country where a gun could mean survival or at the least a much easier way of life.

_________________
Sig?

You're making the false assumption that banning guns equals making them disappear. If you made them illegal, tons of people would still have them. Even if you rounded up guns, do you think someone who would rob a bank or shoot someone would go "oh, well, I want to keep my gun, but it's illegal, so I better turn it in."? More than likely, the only people who would comply with a gun ban are people who wouldn't cause a problem anyway.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Bingo. And there's plenty of other ways someone can easily kill a person without ever using a gun.

Automobiles are one of the most deadly things humans have ever created. Accidents with them are one of the leading causes of death per year.

And more than a few times have they been used intentionally as a weapon.

Odds are, if someone wants to hurt, maim, or kill, lack of guns will not stop them.

At this point I'd like to study death rates of countries before and after gun bans, find if murders went significantly down, etc. Too busy right now. My theory is that the murder rates wouldn't change or drop only slightly.

_________________

what we really need is not to control guns as much as we need to control the people who own the guns. I reccomend picking up the Bowling for Columbine DVD. it put things in perspective for me.

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

Wow! That's nucking futs!

_________________

Dont go around the word filter.

_________________

He wasn't trying to go around the word filter, the quote this is nucking futz is from the movie Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star.

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

Toastpaint.


I think there needs to be some sort of gun control. I don't think anyone needs a gun for anything other that hunting.

_________________

So in your estimation, a civilian owning a gun has never had a positive effect except for hunting?

I should have clarified myself. I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns that make SWAT teams nervous. I don't think Assult Rifles and SMGs should be allowed to touch civilian hands.

_________________

While I don't totally agree with you, I will say that I don't see much use in a civilian carrying something like and MP5 or M-16 or AK-47... I also don't see much point in someone owning a .50 BMG... Granted, automatic weapons and big bores like the .50 are REALLY fun to shoot, but when they fall into the wrong hands, they're a little more dangerous than your average 9mm handgun or .22 rifle.
I don't know that I really feel right about denying people the right to own them, though. Really, I support the way things are now, making them such a pain to purchase that only those VERY serious owners is a good idea.
I'm not totally against banning assault weapons from civilian hands, but I'm just afriad it wouldn't end there.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Gun control does not work. Take Washington DC for example. It is illegal to have a firearm in the city limits, yet it is one of the most dangerous cities in the US. When it becomes criminal to have a gun, only criminals have guns.

It irks me to tears when people try and take away my rights. My favorite sport is target shooting, so this issue is personal to me.

I am a liberal on pretty much every other political issue though, strangely enough.

EDIT - I posted my opinions on the .50 caliber issue in a new thread.

_________________
I'm an email gaaaambler. That means I play cards with emails... full house.
You're ever welcome, Valerie...

Anyone feel like moving the gun control chat here?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

In the case of handguns, people who buy them generally say it is for "self-defense." This is a blanket reason that for many, could be true, but in many cases isn't. Most gun owners are not in the imminent danger that could truly justify owning a firearm, so why own one? Is someone really after you that badly that you simply must have one?

And then there are rifles, shotguns, etc... Use for hunting. Could just as easily be used as a murder weapon. I know people that hunt, but it never appealed to me, seeing as how we are no longer nomadic and have garnered the technology of agriculture and the wonder of the market. Even though I don't like it, I'd rather see someone use every piece of the animal than just cut it's head off, mount its head and then discard the rest. But, I digress. These are so easy to attain that it's sickening. I think that there should be much heavier regulation on these type of firearms. Either way… what is the point of hunting except for hobby? None…

Target shooting… get an Xbox or a girl/boy-friend. Come on... paintball! At least that isn't lethal and is actually fun.

With as much as I'd like to see firearms inaccessible to the general public (as well as and ESPECIALLY police forces in general circumstance... of course if there were another Waco, it would be okay that purpose only), I know that since so many are on the market now, it would be too far out to see in my lifetime or at all. I personally think it should be much more difficult to attain a fire arm. No more of this one-weekend safety training crap, I'm meaning consultation with a psychologist on top of more safety training (at least 3 months) on top of having a really good reason to own one rather than it just being another Freudian phallic extension.

You could argue that cars kill people….guns were made to kill and to serve no other purpose, something Nachos, Rifles and Alcohol forget to realize. Cars were built for transportation and style. One has a more vital purpose than the other, and I'm sure most people would say it's the car. Cars are a necessary part of society with the way technology is going. Vehicular homicide is a very small percentage of homicides. More homicides are committed with guns than cars.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the second amendment is meant to allow you the ability to protect you from a corrupt government. That is what voting is for… and that didn’t even work judging by 2001 and 2004. If voting doesn’t work… what good are rights anyways?

And as far as murder rates go… let us compare ‘Merica to the UK and Japan… ‘Merica, which allows guns, surpasses the UK and Japan by far in murder by far.

The rest of the civilized world is doing just fine with the stricter laws they have regarding firearms. But, that is only one place where 'Merica needs to catch up.

As far as weapons, I have always seen guns as weapons that lack grace or skill. Throughout my life, I’ve come to appreciate swordplay since I have learned to fence and properly wield a katana. Yeah, one may argue swords kill, but as long as it’s made of wood or has a ball on the end of it, it’s safe, besides… most people who do participate in swordsmanship don’t use it for the same reasons for the same reason people own guns. I do swordplay because it is an adrenaline charged, graceful dance that stems from centuries of tradition.

There is only one time I would ever consider owning a gun, and that is in the case of a zombie attack. And, what are the chances of that?

It doesn’t take much grace to point a tube, pull a switch and kill what is on the opposing end.

_________________

I think America needs to take a good long look at guns. Especially now in the recent events at Virginia Tech. I think the State of Virginia is going to take a good long look at it's gun laws and I wouldn't be suprised to see them get changed in the future.

_________________

Changed how?

_________________

Maybe taking guns away completely isn't the answer, but it is WAY TOO EASY to get a gun in several states. Law-abiding citizens who want a gun for any reason shouldn't have a problem with background checks and waiting periods.

That's my two cents. I sincerely hope that Virginia, and other states, take a good long look at their gun policies. How many more people have to die?

_________________

Cho got could have gotten his guns legally with no problem. No criminal record, and a waiting period was no big deal.

Note: I don't know how he got his guns.

_________________

I currently own three guns. I have a generic .22, a Colt Anaconda, and an Springfield Armory XD. I love taking them out to the shooting range for a few hours. It is very relaxing, actually. I don't like gun control mainly because guns that are used in sport are banned as well. I understand reasons to ban guns, but if someone really wants to kill someone, they can use other means. I simply think it would not do a thing.

Btw, a majority of the time, guns are bought and are never used during a home intrusion or a murder, but rather a suicide. I am pretty sure about that, but I forget my source :/.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

Wikipedia says:

Officials believe he used a 9 mm Glock 19 and a .22 caliber Walther P22 handgun.[37] Cho purchased his first gun, the .22 caliber Walther P22 on February 9, 2007 at a pawnbroker in Blacksburg.[38] On March 13, 2007, Cho purchased a second handgun, a semiautomatic 9 mm Glock 19, at Roanoke Firearms[39] In Virginia, permanent legal residents of the United States who are 21 years of age or older are eligible to purchase handguns provided they have not been convicted of any felonies or have other disqualifications.[40] Both guns were found with their serial numbers filed off, a felony offense, federal law enforcement officials said. The owner of Roanoke Firearms was reported to have been 'devastated' when he heard news that one of his weapons was used in the incident.[41] According to former FBI agent Brad Garrett, "This was no spur of the moment crime. He's been thinking about this for several months prior to the shooting."[42]

So, let's say someone breaks into your house and threatens a family member with harm. Are you supposed to run down to the local gun store?
People get vaccinations even though they're not in immediate harm. It's the same idea. You don't wait until you need it.

...and sledge hammers could, just as easily, be used to smash someone's head. Judging something as "dangerous" based on it's POSSIBLE use (even if said possible use is a logical continuation of its intended use)

Food. Hunting is quite a bit more humane than "factory farmed" animals. The meat is tastier and not laden with chemicals and/or injected hormones.

I have and XBox AND I'm engaged.. Saying "get an Xbox" as a substitute to target shooting is like saying "don't read a book, just watch the movie", it's not the same thing. The "book" and target shooting are similar in the fact that they take effort. Target shooting also requires exponentially more skill than ANY video game. It's a lot more fun, too.

Well, at least you're thinking rationally here. A lot of the people who want to take away my right to own a firearm act like banning guns would instantly make them all disappear as if they'd never been made.

That's all good and well, but how follows the existing laws (and who would follow your proposed new regulations)? That's right, law abiding citizens. Putting additional roadblocks to the constitutional right of law abiding citizens would mean nothing to your average thug that can buy a gun "off the record".
Also, the phallic thing sickens me. It's a pathetic attempt to shine a negative light on gun owners. It's like me saying you're an atheist just because you want to be different...

I own guns. They were not made to kill (at least not efficiently).

*sigh* Do you know anyone in the NRA? I'm guessing not. Otherwise, you'd realize how stupid this stereotype is. I have NEVER handled, much less used a gun while using alcohol (how many people can say that about cars?).
Most homicides committed with guns are from people who are not using them legally. People drink and drive, so I suppose you think we should support banning cars and alcohol, too.

If you perform a fair analysis, taking the large difference in population out of the equation by looking at events per 1000 people (or whatever unit of population you want), you'll see that the US is actually far safer in terms of violent crime than the UK.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

FYI: I wrote this at about 7:30 this morning and came home to discover that I hadn't clicked submit.




Actually, you're wrong on this one. You're right, we aren't nomads anymore, but some people still use guns to hunt to eat. Its like fishing, you can't exactly go out to most supermarkets and buy some types of fish. I'm pretty sure they don't sell deer or *insert commonly hunted animal* at supermarkets.


IMO, none of those have the rush of firing a real gun, even if its just at targets. As for sport shooting, its tougher than it looks, as you have to compensate for recoil, etc. while firing quickly on target.






As far as I'm concerned, the only reason swords were invented was to kill, just like guns. Don't get me wrong, I think swordplay really does take more skill, but they're almost the same thing, except one can kill from a distance, which is why guns are used in murders. If guns weren't invented, and the sword was still the common weapon, people would be using them in murders/violent crimes and whatnot.


1 in 10!



Killing isn't graceful in the first part.

Now, don't get me wrong on this, I believe guns should be better controlled, but not with such drastic measures.

_________________

I wish I could find some stats from a non-biased source, but I can't seem to find one. You'd think Wikipedia or the UN would have this, but all Wikipedia has is murder and all the UN gives you is "total crimes reported", neither of which give you much of a picture.
I'm not sure how good this site is, but they are the only one that seems to have this info easily accessible.
There are more assaults per 1000 people in the US than there are in the UK (but it's a pretty small difference, about .1 per 1000 people). There are more burglaries in the UK (about twice as many, per 1000 people than in the US), more robberies in the UK (about .1 per 1000 people, so small difference there), about twice as many rapes in the US (per 1000) than the UK, but fewer (by a small amount) than Canada.

Of course, crimes are not committed by law-abiding citizens. The number of people I have shot in my life would be unaffected by the number, caliber, or method of operation of guns I own.

In my opinion (I won't dare try to report this as fact, even though it might actually be), guns don't cause crime, they're simply a means to that end. Blaming guns for crimes is logically equivalent for blaming cars for drunk drivers (a mad gunman can't kill a group of people in a mall without guns and an alcoholic can't drive into a school bus without a car).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Not use a gun. Simple as that. You know how many people have thrown this one at me? I know some Krav Maga, and most of the techniques I learned were to counteract those who use guns.



But, all of those other objects were made for a purpose other than killing people. Theoretically, you can kill with just about anything, but does not mean that it is their sole purpose. Guns were made for one thing... killing.



I already know about chemical treatment of animals and barely eat meat anymore.



Trust me, I'd rather you have a vast library than a stockpile. Congratulations, btw.





It takes a hell of a lot more than what your average thug is capable of. Most of your "average thugs" are not connected enough to have access to black market firearms. Nice try. It was cute. Wanna cookie?

And, for one, law abiding does not mean sane or stable. Why do you think I suggested heavy psychological battery tests? If you simply must have your guns, at least the more balanced of the populous will have them.



Well, the obsession with guns as far as I can see from my studies in human psychology is entirely parallel to what Freud has said about trying to assert ouvert masculinity and power (the "penis envy" theory.)

And how would you know I'm an atheist?



Well, what purpose do guns serve other than kill? Well, if you mean by inefficiently... they have to be .22s or something. Still, just like a Derringer, you can kill with any caliber gun.



But that result in fatalities... the 'Merica has the UK beat.

_________________

I have a gun that was made for target shooting. All guns are not made for killing. It's a nice thought by those who want to demonize them, but it's simply not true.

You can have both, you know.


I won't disagree with you that the more balanced among us should be the only ones that should have guns, but not even the most rigorous psychological battery tests can catch all of the wackos (remember the wacko astronaut from a couple months ago?). At some point, one would have to weigh the burden of the tests versus the benefit they provide (isn't that what the basis of most regulations is?). I'm an atmospheric scientist, not a psychologist, so I can't say for certin, but even IF a test does find a "problem", does that always mean that a person will flip out? If so, then EVERYONE should be required to undergo these tests.

If you're talking about people who brandish guns (think "gangsta rappers", crazy dudes from Montana, etc) as a show of status or power, then I'd say you're spot on. If you're talking about my cousin (going to school on a Rifle scholarship) and/or other competitive/recreational shooters, then I don't know that I'd agree.

I was just using that as an example, didn't mean anything by it.

Mine blast ceramic disks and put holes in paper, too.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Deathly, you say that swords are fine and dandy if you use wood or have a ball on the tip. Well, the same could be said for guns if you used blanks or plastic bullets. Just wanna say that that is a possible situation.

I use guns for target practice. Guns have other purposes other than killing. I don't go target shooting for practice for people, I just go to have some fun. Nothing more. They could of course be used for killing, but then again, couldn't your swords? Wooden swords do have a potential to kill. You probably wouldn't though, right? Same with me and my guns.

I have never viewed my owning guns as me being more of a man. I just considered it to be a hobby, really. I don't brag about owning guns, I don't like using them in casual conversation, and I personally like shooting alone. Sure, some people do that, that is obvious. But do all gun owners do so? Heck no. You really need to stop piling all gun owners into one big pile. I (And certainly StrongRad) are responsible gun owners. I always lock my guns in a personal safe in my closet, and I usually don't put my ammo in with them.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!