+- Fearless Forums (https://fearlessrp.net)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Forum: Discussions (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: Archive (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=481)
+---- Thread: 2nd Amendment (/showthread.php?tid=16677)
RE: 2nd Amendment - Holdem - 12-22-2012
By stopping the circulation of guns we won't acomplish anything. The only way the US can "Sanitize" it's weapons is by obliging everyone to hand in their weapons that are bigger than a pistol. The US I'm pretty sure keeps a record of all weapons sold and such. If you haven't handed in your weapon by whatever day, police take it by force and fine you.
This, in my opinion, is the only way the US can sanitize it's cities. Sure, there will still be illegal weapons around and it will increase the black market sale of these automatic weapons... But still, I'm pretty sure 10% of automatic-semiautomatic rifles is better than 100%.
Just my two cents.
RE: 2nd Amendment - aviator - 12-22-2012
I understand where your coming from, on a lot of these cases.
(12-22-2012, 08:54 PM)Joey Skylynx Wrote: All the things you listed as non-lethal have been noted for taking lifes on multiple occasions, but I see where you are going.
Self defense is situated on the moment of the incident, and the tool used in such incident is not an matter of debate. The right to self-defense, and defense of one's property is an unalienable right and having firearms for the respect isn't against the law by any means.
In respect of the Black Market comment... Any estimation of the black market is situated on just that. Estimations. You can't have any form of suited arguement in an black market debate until the damage is already done, and in the cases of the United States with something like the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, we've got roughly three criminal study groups which have provided that the AWB does jackshit.
Yes, those non-lethal items may have taken lives, but on the whole they are there to stop the uses of deadly force. I understand the right to self defense, this can be easily achieved without a gun. If I was at home, having a gun or legalized guns would make the situation worse, gun vs gun? Hell no. The tool used is and should be the matter of debate, if some one punched you, would you pull out your AK 47 and kill them? That wouldn't be self defense. Had you have punched them back, perhaps breaking an arm, that is feasible. Same situation here: Some one starts beating you up, your stronger and better, you ended up killing the person accidently that's classed as self defense, had you pulled out a gun or tazer that is not allowed. To be honest even punching him to death isn't good enough, running or evading is your best bet.
The way you were brought up, I understand it is just a bit odd to someone in the U.K to hear that. I respect your decision of childhood.
Quote:And that can still some pretty nasty damage. Machetes alone were primarily used as military weapons up until the 60's. Hell the US Army Rangers still use them as secondary weapons for christ sake.Yes these weapons can do nasty damage but not as much as a gun.
Quote:Yet do you have any example of how the government is going to magically take away 311,000,000+ guns in circulation?Well, this leads to a question. Why in such modern times, have they let this happen. Sure, making them illegal many should and hopefully good citizens, law abiding ones that is, sell them back. Those who don't would obviously face the court of justice facing a prison sentence. May I add, this 'Bill of Rights' seems quite odd. As for the shaking a bee hive for no good reason. How is saving the lives of, for example, 26 five year old children practically, don't fix what isn't broken, from what I can tell that is broken, past broken, beyond repair.
Sure some may sell them back, but once you start taking things out of the Bill of Rights, primarily the 2nd and 4th Amendments, you'll begin shaking a bee hive for no good reason.
RE: 2nd Amendment - Joey Skylynx - 12-22-2012
One problem with the whole, 'we need to remove semi-automatic rifles'
Semi-automatic rifles only account for 0.75% of murders in the United States.
Quote:1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html#ixzz2FooBoEQc
These are the most commonly used guns in murder, and for the most part they are your standard Saturday/Sunday Night Special. Mostly used by gangs to just deal with one another.
RE: 2nd Amendment - aviator - 12-22-2012
My problem is any gun. No matter the type it is I wish not to walk side by side to people with a gun. The homicidal rates from deadly force in the U.S.A is very high, you can see that from previous posts. The homicidal rates in the U.K is pretty high from lesser lethal weapons and is generally due to gang culture not just killing a random civilian. The majority of homicide in the U.K is due to gang culture or the murders are preemptive not just a killing spree because someone managed to get their hands on a lot of ammunition and military grade or just below weapons.
RE: 2nd Amendment - buffalobagingi - 12-22-2012
Take away guns.
People will use knives.
Take away knives.
People will use broken bottles, blunt objects, etc.
Take away those.
People will just choke eachother, punch their chests, etc.
No matter how much shit you make illegal, people will always find a way.
RE: 2nd Amendment - aviator - 12-22-2012
(12-22-2012, 09:33 PM)Kiruclanz Wrote: Take away guns.
People will use knives.
Take away knives.
People will use broken bottles, blunt objects, etc.
Take away those.
People will just choke eachother, punch their chests, etc.
No matter how much shit you make illegal, people will always find a way.
That is inevitable, it is exceedingly easy to kill someone with a gun, a killing machine if they are legalized.
It is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun.
It is very hard to choke, punch or kill by other means.
RE: 2nd Amendment - Joey Skylynx - 12-22-2012
Quote:Yes, those non-lethal items may have taken lives, but on the whole they are there to stop the uses of deadly force. I understand the right to self defense, this can be easily achieved without a gun. If I was at home, having a gun or legalized guns would make the situation worse, gun vs gun? Hell no. The tool used is and should be the matter of debate, if some one punched you, would you pull out your AK 47 and kill them? That wouldn't be self defense. Had you have punched them back, perhaps breaking an arm, that is feasible. Same situation here: Some one starts beating you up, your stronger and better, you ended up killing the person accidently that's classed as self defense, had you pulled out a gun or tazer that is not allowed. To be honest even punching him to death isn't good enough, running or evading is your best bet.But using the gun would also end the situation right there and then. If I use an hunting shotgun with bird shot, it'll make them hurt like an mother f'er, but they'll still live to see another day, and if I was actually forced into an situation like that, I would try to actually get the person out of my house by mere show of force.
Which in respect of an semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15, the sight of such an rifle would be enough to make someone back down.
Quote:The way you were brought up, I understand it is just a bit odd to someone in the U.K to hear that. I respect your decision of childhood.It's funny considering I grew up in an large town known as Buffalo, NY.
Quote:Yes these weapons can do nasty damage but not as much as a gun.Look at your own risk
Quote:Well, this leads to a question. Why in such modern times, have they let this happen. Sure, making them illegal many should and hopefully good citizens, law abiding ones that is, sell them back. Those who don't would obviously face the court of justice facing a prison sentence. May I add, this 'Bill of Rights' seems quite odd. As for the shaking a bee hive for no good reason. How is saving the lives of, for example, 26 five year old children practically, don't fix what isn't broken, from what I can tell that is broken, past broken, beyond repair.The fact of the matter[which most people forget] is Lanza was actually denied the right to purchase an firearm, and ammo thanks to the 4473(NCIS Mental/Police Backgrounds). Why it didn't raise flags, and why he wasn't pulled into an local police department for interrogation(which is customary), is something which greatly aggravates me regarding this whole case.
Then we also come to the fact that Connecticut is an hold-over of the AWB Restrictions. Meaning it's a lot tougher to get an gun there, then it would be for me in North Dakota.
Little sadistic humor actually, in North Dakota we have less firearm crimes then anywhere in the country, yet we've got the laxest firearm laws.
(12-22-2012, 09:33 PM)Aviator Wrote: My problem is any gun. No matter the type it is I wish not to walk side by side to people with a gun. The homicidal rates from deadly force in the U.S.A is very high, you can see that from previous posts. The homicidal rates in the U.K is pretty high from lesser lethal weapons and is generally due to gang culture not just killing a random civilian. The majority of homicide in the U.K is due to gang culture or the murders are preemptive not just a killing spree because someone managed to get their hands on a lot of ammunition and military grade or just below weapons.
The majority of the homicides in the United States are also related to gang culture... And unemployment, the failing mental healthcare system, lack of education, and constantly raising standards for employment.
RE: 2nd Amendment - DarkSider - 12-22-2012
Quote:Quote:Yes these weapons can do nasty damage but not as much as a gun.Look at your own risk
I would rather get a clean shot through the leg than get cut like that.
RE: 2nd Amendment - Joey Skylynx - 12-22-2012
Hence why I prefer carrying guns over knifes/machetes. If I shoot someone it's pretty clean unless the round tumbles.
RE: 2nd Amendment - Slick Rick - 12-22-2012
(12-22-2012, 09:15 PM)Holdem Wrote: By stopping the circulation of guns we won't acomplish anything. The only way the US can "Sanitize" it's weapons is by obliging everyone to hand in their weapons that are bigger than a pistol. The US I'm pretty sure keeps a record of all weapons sold and such. If you haven't handed in your weapon by whatever day, police take it by force and fine you.
This, in my opinion, is the only way the US can sanitize it's cities. Sure, there will still be illegal weapons around and it will increase the black market sale of these automatic weapons... But still, I'm pretty sure 10% of automatic-semiautomatic rifles is better than 100%.
Just my two cents.
Not really the "Land of the Free" anymore if the government can force us to hand in things that we own.