• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gun Control: Does Owning Guns make some people feel Special?

Smoke

Done here.
I am not sure about the hunting part. To be honest. Because I myself don't believe in killing living things for sport, but can I really take that away from somebody who enjoys it? I don't know what to say about hunting. Maybe they could allow hunting with heavy regulations.

I think killing for sport is repulsive, but killing for food isn't. I don't know any practical way for the government to involve itself in determining the motives of hunters, and I don't think they should try. But I really hate people who just get their rocks off by killing.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Regulations on hunting are already heavy enough, you have to do all kinds of paperwork for permits and make sure it's the right season, you can only use a certain gun; all kinds of unnecessary crap just to go hunting. Gun regulations in general are too strict. This country was built on guns, and they aren't going anywhere. What people really need to do is recognize that gun ownership is a right; one that won't be taken away without a gunfight.
 

Ciscokid

Well-Known Member
I don't own a gun. I don't suspect I ever will. I think guns are police officers, not toys or collector's items. What is your view on the gun debate? Are you pro-gun ownership, or pro-gun ownership laws and regulations?


I think people should be allowed to have guns. I have no problem with there being a registration process etc. I do have a problem with saying that the common person is not allowed to have a gun at all.
 

Ciscokid

Well-Known Member
I don't think there's enough restrictions. That's the point. Guns are weapons, and they can kill people. Why is it that only in America is gun ownership an issue? Nobody makes it an issue in other countries. It's generally not a good idea to have a lethal weapon in the hands of the general public.


Are you going to outlaw machetes? Chain saws? Nail guns?
 

enchanted_one1975

Resident Lycanthrope
I almost ran over a deer today just for the fun of it. I thought of this thread though and swerved at the last minute. Bambi got lucky. My driver's license should be revoked so this can never happen. :(
 

Comicaze247

See the previous line
Actually, you can cross 15 feet fast enough to beat reaction time. People who are trained to secure possibly armed assailants make sure to keep more than 15 feet as this distance can be covered quickly. Now, usually this time includes drawing your weapon. However, charging an untrained person with a handgun is entirely possible at 15 feet. Not that I would recommend it.
Neither would I.

The point I was making though was one of "usual distances." If you are getting mugged, you are in close quarters.
Yeah, I got that, hence the "unless they're completely stupid." If someone gets that close to you with any long-range weapon, they either intend to use it right then, or they're mentally challenged.

That isn't an option in close quarters where most of these attacks take place.
True, I'll give you that, in terms of a mugging. I kept picturing a robbery, like at a convenience shop or a bank.

Not true at all. For example, my Krav Maga training centers around responding to the threat immediately and forcefully BEFORE the person can use there weapon. Disable them and get away.
Probably just a different philosophy. I've taken several different forms (never was able to continue for long), all Eastern, and that's what I was taught. I can see the merits of both. I've actually been wanting to take Krav Maga, :p

And if it comes down to that, I want a gun. It is an excellent preventative measure.
That, I can understand.

This is why I'm torn about it.
Everyone has the right to guns, so good citizens can protect themselves. But it also makes it even easier for criminals to get their hands on guns.
But if we ban guns, criminals will still find a way to get them, and the general populace will be defenseless.
So banning guns isn't the answer, but something needs to be done about the current accessibility of guns (imho).
My idea is having anyone who wants to own a gun to undergo a background check along with some test to determine their state of mind (I suggested psychological evaluation earlier, but some disagree). In addition, I think they should undergo training and tests on safety regulations.
Yeah, it would be a hassle, but it would make it easier to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people. The safety training would also help with the accidental shootings.
I also think these tests should have to be retaken on a regular basis.
 

enchanted_one1975

Resident Lycanthrope
My idea is having anyone who wants to own a gun to undergo a background check along with some test to determine their state of mind (I suggested psychological evaluation earlier, but some disagree). In addition, I think they should undergo training and tests on safety regulations.
Do you think those selling guns to criminals would adhere to this?

By the way, a person that has ever been arrested on a domestic violence charge is prohibited from owning a firearm even if they were not convicted of the crime. Because a guy might have had a messed up girlfriend make up a story to get him in trouble 20 years ago, is it right to keep him from defending his family now? I think not...
 

Comicaze247

See the previous line
Do you think those selling guns to criminals would adhere to this?
How would those people get the guns to sell them? Undergo those tests.
And if people really are intending to use it just for self defense, how would these tests prevent them from doing so?

By the way, a person that has ever been arrested on a domestic violence charge is prohibited from owning a firearm even if they were not convicted of the crime. Because a guy might have had a messed up girlfriend make up a story to get him in trouble 20 years ago, is it right to keep him from defending his family now? I think not...
Did I say it was right?
Yeah, domestic violence cases are always messy. It's hard to get concrete evidence for either side aside from video footage. But psychological evaluation and/or polygraph tests could help with determining the man's stability and intent.
 

enchanted_one1975

Resident Lycanthrope
How would those people get the guns to sell them? Undergo those tests.
And if people really are intending to use it just for self defense, how would these tests prevent them from doing so?
You would be surprised how many guns the US Government sells to the "black market." They have many reasons for doing it, although I don't feel any are justified. Even if they stopped doing so, guns can be smuggled in from other countries. Every day many are smuggled in and out of the US. No law will ever be able to stop that.


Did I say it was right?
Yeah, domestic violence cases are always messy. It's hard to get concrete evidence for either side aside from video footage. But psychological evaluation and/or polygraph tests could help with determining the man's stability and intent.
A polygraph is not admissible in court and a psychological evaluation is based on a doctor's opinion. I don't feel I should have to waive my constitutional rights in favor of either of those.
 

Comicaze247

See the previous line
You would be surprised how many guns the US Government sells to the "black market." They have many reasons for doing it, although I don't feel any are justified. Even if they stopped doing so, guns can be smuggled in from other countries. Every day many are smuggled in and out of the US. No law will ever be able to stop that.
Granted, it wouldn't stop the smuggling from other countries. But how would something like this prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns? Nothing. All it would do would be to lessen the amount of guns out there.

A polygraph is not admissible in court and a psychological evaluation is based on a doctor's opinion. I don't feel I should have to waive my constitutional rights in favor of either of those.
I don't think you should either, unless you somehow become a danger to yourself or others.
And those are just my ideas. I'll give you that the two tests are not 100%, but I do believe there should be a way to determine someone's state of mind prior to handing them a gun. I'm not an expert, so I can't say what exactly would be most effective in doing so.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Granted, it wouldn't stop the smuggling from other countries. But how would something like this prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns? Nothing. All it would do would be to lessen the amount of guns out there.


I don't think you should either, unless you somehow become a danger to yourself or others.
And those are just my ideas. I'll give you that the two tests are not 100%, but I do believe there should be a way to determine someone's state of mind prior to handing them a gun. I'm not an expert, so I can't say what exactly would be most effective in doing so.
If somebody's too crazy to have a gun, they'll use whatever else is handy anyway. I don't see why people act like guns are the only weapons. Where do you draw the line? Should people be tested for knives? Bats? Can openers? It's our right to be able to defend ourselves, and if we choose guns as our way of doing so, there shouldn't be anything at all in the way of that. Simple solution: if a crazy person gets a hold of a gun and tries to hurt innocent people with it, shoot him. It would be a lot easier to stop him if there weren't so many restrictions on guns in the first place.
 

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
If somebody's too crazy to have a gun, they'll use whatever else is handy anyway. I don't see why people act like guns are the only weapons. Where do you draw the line? Should people be tested for knives? Bats? Can openers? It's our right to be able to defend ourselves, and if we choose guns as our way of doing so, there shouldn't be anything at all in the way of that. Simple solution: if a crazy person gets a hold of a gun and tries to hurt innocent people with it, shoot him. It would be a lot easier to stop him if there weren't so many restrictions on guns in the first place.

Can't stop with the revolver ,we definately have to have restrictions on the knife, candelstick, rope ,wrench, and lead pipe also!
 

Comicaze247

See the previous line
If somebody's too crazy to have a gun, they'll use whatever else is handy anyway. I don't see why people act like guns are the only weapons. Where do you draw the line? Should people be tested for knives? Bats? Can openers? It's our right to be able to defend ourselves, and if we choose guns as our way of doing so, there shouldn't be anything at all in the way of that. Simple solution: if a crazy person gets a hold of a gun and tries to hurt innocent people with it, shoot him. It would be a lot easier to stop him if there weren't so many restrictions on guns in the first place.
And if there were more restrictions, he'd have less of a chance to get his hands on a gun in the first place.

Can't stop with the revolver ,we definately have to have restrictions on the knife, candelstick, rope ,wrench, and lead pipe also!
Seriously, what's with all the "slippery slope" arguments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Sure, a weapon is only as deadly as the person wielding it. But the damage that can be caused by a single gunshot far outweighs a single stab wound from a blade or single impact with a blunt object.
Smack to the chest with a bat - Bruised, possibly broken ribs, and maybe getting the wind knocked out of you.
Stab to the chest - Laceration of the skin, possibly punctured lung, stomach, or heart if it passes the ribs.
Shot to the chest - Piercing of skin, broken ribs, punctured lung, stomach, or heart, exit wound.
If there are any doctors in the house that can correct me on these (I have no medical training, these are just predictions), please do.

It also does the damage more easily. Anyone can shoot and kill. You can drop a gun and set it off and it could kill someone. A blade? Not unless you drop a really heavy one on top of somebody (like a claymore) or drop one from the top of a building and have it actually land point down.

Bottom line, guns have much more damage potential than blades or bats, which is why I believe there should be more safety training, use training, background checks, and personality screenings in order for someone to use one.

EDIT: FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SEEM TO THINK I'M ARGUING TO BAN GUNS: I'M NOT!
People should be able to defend themselves with guns, I agree. But we should choose who can use a gun more carefully.
 
Last edited:

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
And if there were more restrictions, he'd have less of a chance to get his hands on a gun in the first place.
Which is why Washington DC is a safe place to live, right?
Seriously, what's with all the "slippery slope" arguments?
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, a weapon is only as deadly as the person wielding it. But the damage that can be caused by a single gunshot far outweighs a single stab wound from a blade or single impact with a blunt object.
Smack to the chest with a bat - Bruised, possibly broken ribs, and maybe getting the wind knocked out of you.
Stab to the chest - Laceration of the skin, possibly punctured lung, stomach, or heart if it passes the ribs.
Shot to the chest - Piercing of skin, broken ribs, punctured lung, stomach, or heart, exit wound.
If there are any doctors in the house that can correct me on these (I have no medical training, these are just predictions), please do.
I've known people to be killed by being punched in the chest. Seriously, it just struck him in a right way and stopped his heart. It's a one-in-a-million thing, but it happens.
Being beaten by a baseball bat can be awfully fatal, and isn't much harder to do than shooting someone. A few swings, especially once someone is on the ground and there body cannot move with the strike, and you'll start shattering bones beyond repair. Hell, even bare-handed you can have in someone's skull with a few of those.

Now the effects of a bullet can vary pretty drastically. People can, and often do, survive being shot in the head. My cousin did medical work in Iraq, and treated an Iraqi man (who was not at all happy about being treated by a white blonde female) for a bullet lodged in his skull. To be fair, he wasn't shot, per se, they'd just been firing shots in the air and, well, what goes up must come down. But that's more a funny story than an example of what i'm talking about.

Really, being shot is much the same as any puncture wound, especially if we are dealing with full metal jacket rounds*, in that the bullet will enter and exit with (all things considered) minimal damage. It's like being stabbed with a very long, thin knife. Very quickly and with a lot of force. Hollow-points can create a more severe exit wound, but are still rarely immediately fatal if you are not shot in the heart or head.

Basically what i'm getting at is you're no more likely to survive getting jumped by guys with baseball bats than guys with firearms.
It also does the damage more easily. Anyone can shoot and kill. You can drop a gun and set it off and it could kill someone. A blade? Not unless you drop a really heavy one on top of somebody (like a claymore) or drop one from the top of a building and have it actually land point down.

Bottom line, guns have much more damage potential than blades or bats, which is why I believe there should be more safety training, use training, background checks, and personality screenings in order for someone to use one.

Now the first point is actually a huge selling point for firearms. Anyone, no matter how small, weak, or frail, has the ability to defend themselves thanks to firearms. A little old lady need not fear the 6' 6" 250 lb gangster when she has a piece in her purse. She's on equal grounds with him now.

Also, weapons don't generally just go off when you drop them. This is one of those areas where you're showing how truly little you understand about weapons. I've seen a cop lock back the hammer on his sidearm and throw it on the ground to demonstrate how safe it is. They do not go off unless you tell them to.

*Not the movie. Full metal jacket rounds have a hard metal case around the soft core of the shell to prevent reshaping. This means it will enter the target and exit with minimal damage. Most military munitions come in this form, but it is not recommended for civil use because the bullet can carry through the target and strike something or someone behind it. Hollow-points are usually used for self-defense and by law-enforcement for this reason.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
And if there were more restrictions, he'd have less of a chance to get his hands on a gun in the first place.


Seriously, what's with all the "slippery slope" arguments?
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, a weapon is only as deadly as the person wielding it. But the damage that can be caused by a single gunshot far outweighs a single stab wound from a blade or single impact with a blunt object.
Smack to the chest with a bat - Bruised, possibly broken ribs, and maybe getting the wind knocked out of you.
Stab to the chest - Laceration of the skin, possibly punctured lung, stomach, or heart if it passes the ribs.
Shot to the chest - Piercing of skin, broken ribs, punctured lung, stomach, or heart, exit wound.
If there are any doctors in the house that can correct me on these (I have no medical training, these are just predictions), please do.

It also does the damage more easily. Anyone can shoot and kill. You can drop a gun and set it off and it could kill someone. A blade? Not unless you drop a really heavy one on top of somebody (like a claymore) or drop one from the top of a building and have it actually land point down.

Bottom line, guns have much more damage potential than blades or bats, which is why I believe there should be more safety training, use training, background checks, and personality screenings in order for someone to use one.

EDIT: FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SEEM TO THINK I'M ARGUING TO BAN GUNS: I'M NOT!
People should be able to defend themselves with guns, I agree. But we should choose who can use a gun more carefully.
1) A stab wound is just as fatal as a gunshot wound, you can just be further away with a gun. Also, more gunshot victims survive than those who are stabbed.

2) It takes a complete retard to believe you can actually set off a gun by dropping it. Stop watching movies. The only way to fire a gun is to pull the trigger.

3)These restrictions are only hurting law-abiding citizens who truly want to defend themselves. They're not stopping anyone who doesn't want to follow these rules. I live in Boston, I can sit outside my door right now with 50 bucks and have a gun in 20 minutes. Literally.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
2) It takes a complete retard to believe you can actually set off a gun by dropping it. Stop watching movies. The only way to fire a gun is to pull the trigger.

Actually, this is a problem for some older designs, particularly single action revolvers without
a transfer bar for the hammer. That type should always be carried chamber empty. (I'm more
of an incomplete retard.)
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Actually, this is a problem for some older designs, particularly single action revolvers without
a transfer bar for the hammer. That type should always be carried chamber empty. (I'm more of an incomplete retard.)
Nobody carries a single-action revolver anymore, John Wayne is dead lol. There have been some huge strides in gun engineering since the days of the single-action revolver. I'm talking about guns made after my great-grandparents, should have been more specific.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
People feel special for just about anything - what church they belong to, what car they drive, what television show they watch, what their astrological symbol is. And, after all, aren't we all unique, special little miracles? At least, that's what I've heard they're teaching kids these days.
 

enchanted_one1975

Resident Lycanthrope
Actually, this is a problem for some older designs, particularly single action revolvers without
a transfer bar for the hammer. That type should always be carried chamber empty. (I'm more
of an incomplete retard.)
Nobody carries a single-action revolver anymore, John Wayne is dead lol. There have been some huge strides in gun engineering since the days of the single-action revolver. I'm talking about guns made after my great-grandparents, should have been more specific.
Some people do. Even a modern single action revolver will not go off if dropped. New handguns must pass a "drop test" to be sold in the US. If you have an older model there are still safeties in place. The most popular is probably the Ruger Vaquero "three screw." There are three positions for the hammer on this model. All the way down should take place immediately after firing it, as the hammer will have just dropped, firing the round. There is a full cocked position which must be done prior to firing the next round. There is also a position that is inbetween these two. It lets the hammer rest about 1mm above the "all the way down" position. This is how this handgun was designed to be carried. If you are not familiar with this weapon you probably should not carry it. If you send one in to Ruger they will modify it to meet current safety standards, but you will have thrown away any and all collector's value in this vintage firearm.
 
Top