The Laws on Firearms.

moxco · #1 08-08-2009, 12:56 PM

When I saw this image I literally LoLed. What to these dickheads think? That guns protect people and save lives? Anyway what are your views on gun laws.

used:) · #2 08-08-2009, 01:06 PM

From what I've heard, obtaining a firearm is an arduous task even without more government regulation, but I'm still perplexed as to why shootings still takeplace so much. There was recently a shooting near my hometown of Pittsburgh. The guy apparently got his weapons from the same place the perpatrator of the Virginia Tech shootings got his.

The argument that a well-armed populace is the best defense against tyrrany is bullshit too.

That being said, I think there should be more gun control since we live in times where weapons are far more destructive and available than in the times of when the US was founded. I'm only talking about the US becuase "the right to bear arms" has always been an ambiguous subject and I don't think the forefathers could foresee what might result from not having gun control.

Sekto Springs · #3 08-08-2009, 02:00 PM

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Silly.

Hobo · #4 08-08-2009, 02:08 PM

Why a citizen would ever need a gun is beyond me.

Fuzzle Guy · #5 08-08-2009, 02:58 PM

It's usually so they can shoot something.

shaman · #6 08-08-2009, 03:05 PM

:

Why a citizen would ever need a gun is beyond me.

Home defence, A hobby, Hunting, pest control?

Anonyman! · #7 08-08-2009, 04:47 PM

I do believe people should be able to own their own guns, to a degree. I don't understand automatic weapons and shit like that, but I am ok with rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. Why? They have the right. I don't care why.

used:) · #8 08-08-2009, 07:04 PM

It may be their right, but with firearms comes the ablity to kill far more easily. Such power should be bestowed quite carefully and cautiously. Why should a room full of people have to die because it was someone's right to own a firearm? Of course, the problem lies in society rather than fireams, but no one has the ability to push society to a state of pacifism. So, if the people can't use this kind of power wisely, they shouldn't even be given that kind of power in the first place. For hunting, it's different.

Bullet Magnet · #9 08-09-2009, 05:06 AM

Tell me, yanks. What's easier to get hold of in your end of the world: a gun, or a ballistic vest?

Havoc · #10 08-09-2009, 05:24 AM

In a perfect world: People have the right to own a weapon to defend themselves against people with ill intentions and/or to raise up against a corrupt government should it ever come that far (but we're in a perfect world here, so it won't).

Reality: People have the right to own a weapon but 90% of them are too stupid and retarded to use it responsibly. Also, the main reason you are allowed a weapon is to stand up to a corrupt government which is much more likely to happen in the real world than it is in a perfect world. However, odds are that your little 9MM is not going to do very much against a platoon of soldiers wearing bulletproof vests and carrying M16s and who have the ability to call in 3 F16s to bomb your house to millions of tiny pieces.

The "Right to bear arms" law that currently enables citizens of the USA to own handguns is outdated and should be seriously reconsidered. When it was written it was meant as a way to prevent the government from getting to much power and stuff like that. We're past that point so that law should be revised to say the least.

As for home defense, I for one support being able to defend yourself against someone breaking and entering. If someone has the guts to take stuff that belongs to someone else he should damnwell receive a bullet to the kneecaps for that. The problem is that not everyone has very good aim, especially in the dark in a stressful situation. So more often than not, you'll end up killing the guy which is a bit over the top and is not a responsibility you want to have for normal citizens. People who sleep with a gun under their pillow can just as easily headshot their neighboor who came running in the bedroom to tell him his house is on fire, for instance.

It's very double sided, IMO.

MA · #11 08-09-2009, 06:42 AM

not long after i joined OWF i tried to go about owning a simple shotgun for sport and pest control in my previous line of work.

in England you need to apply for a shotgun license from the police, who check your background (obviously). if they give you one you then need to invest in an approved gun cabinet that must be on the ground floor and kept locked at all times, with a separate locked cabinet for the ammunition. you muse convince the police that you have a good reason to own a shotgun, THEN you get the gun which must be kept in a sleeve unless being used and register it with the police. You then have to find somewhere suitable to use it with land owners permission, and have to show the police in person the area in which you intend to use it to see if they approve. if they do, you must abide by all shooting laws like not shooting near roads, or out of moving cars, etc. Also the police arrange visits to your home personally to inspect your gun cabinet otherwise they will have your license revoked. if the shotgun fires more than three cartridges you need to register it under a firearms license (i think thats what its called) which is even more fucking tedious, but necessary. also i don't think people that live in densely populated areas stand much of a chance getting a gun license either. and it goes without saying that all this costs a bomb, especially the gun cabinet that sometimes costs more than the actual gun. i couldn't afford it.

i thought fuck that, so i just got an air rifle. very basic but it does the job.

that was very long. sorry.

used:) · #12 08-09-2009, 06:43 AM

:

Tell me, yanks. What's easier to get hold of in your end of the world: a gun, or a ballistic vest?

And how many people do you think you'll see wearing bullet-proof vests in a fitness club?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...914626,00.html

The incident I mentioned earlier.

Hobo · #13 08-09-2009, 10:04 AM

:

Home defence, A hobby, Hunting, pest control?

You can do all those things without a gun. I have never felt the need to protect my home with a weapon.

While I can see the attraction, I don't see the point for any sane member of society.

Sekto Springs · #14 08-09-2009, 10:06 AM

I agree with Hobo. Whats wrong with a dog, or to a lesser extent, a home security system?

Bullet Magnet · #15 08-09-2009, 11:01 AM

Personally, I'm a fan of sea mines.

used:) · #16 08-09-2009, 11:03 AM

So, all houses in England really do have moats?

Bullet Magnet · #17 08-09-2009, 11:48 AM

Only in Windsor. But the truly genius can devise a terrestrial system using such old naval ordnance.

Hobo · #18 08-09-2009, 02:20 PM

I was in Windsor today. True story.

Daxter King · #19 08-09-2009, 05:01 PM

I'm fine with it the way it is in the US. What with the communists and the terrorists now, we need them more than ever.

used:) · #20 08-09-2009, 05:24 PM

I know you're kidding, but after all, you're from Texas.

shaman · #21 08-10-2009, 01:21 AM

:

I have never felt the need to protect my home with a weapon

Neither have i, but i would like to stress the point that some people may feel the need to.

Leto · #22 08-10-2009, 01:37 AM

Thanks shaman. Point stressed.

shaman · #23 08-10-2009, 01:40 AM

You're welcome.

Hobo · #24 08-10-2009, 04:10 AM

:

Neither have i, but i would like to stress the point that some people may feel the need to.

Well maybe if less of the population had guns they wouldn't have to.

Anonyman! · #25 08-10-2009, 10:52 PM

Don't give a shit. People's right. Sorry.

Besides, if someone really wants to kill people, some pesky gun control laws aren't gonna stop them.

Havoc · #26 08-11-2009, 02:36 AM

And you don't need a gun to kill someone. However, most deaths resulting from privately owned firearms are not on purpose, they are accidents.

***Nate*** · #27 08-11-2009, 04:49 AM

Also, most people who get angry enough to commit murder cool off in the time that it takes to prepare and commit the act. Or, they chicken out halfway through when they realise what they're doing.

Guns make things much too quick and easy.

alf's brother's mate · #28 08-11-2009, 05:50 AM

Possession of a firearm should only be for either a game hunter who owns private land or someone who has something that they wish to protect from burglars such as themselves, but then again who gets killed by a burglar in the UK?
Guns are useless for a civilian as they cause pointless risk, farmers should be the only exception for killing threats to his animals.

ABM

used:) · #29 08-11-2009, 07:20 AM

:

Don't give a shit. People's right. Sorry.

Besides, if someone really wants to kill people, some pesky gun control laws aren't gonna stop them.

It may be their right, but what about the rights of their potential victims?

OANST · #30 08-11-2009, 07:27 AM

:

Don't give a shit. People's right. Sorry.

Besides, if someone really wants to kill people, some pesky gun control laws aren't gonna stop them.

I don't see any reason to consider the ability to own machines that are expressly made for the intent of killing human beings as an inalienable right. And don't use the fore fathers said, or it's in the constitution argument. Black people are only 3/4 of a person as far as the constitution is concerned. This is why we have amendments.

Oh, yeah. And I can out run a rock. I don't like my odds against a bullet.