Firearms - Legal or Illegal?

[Nemo]

Dummy, I said that I would only pull the trigger if I was directly threatened by such a person, or if my family was threatened. Someone taking my wallet does not deserve a bullet in the brain. Sure, I'd probably imagine doing that to the person if that happened to me, but it would be unjustifiable.

Shoot 'em in the foot.

Small chance of dying, big chance of fun.

[snuzi]

I know that other crimes can be considered capital crimes. I was just mentioned the most common ones that are punishable by death.

The difference: Eminent Personnel Harm. This is basically the only reason U.S.courts will take for capping someone in your home.

Or if the individual threatens you or your family.

I suggest you don`t try this, its not that simple.

It was a simple example. And you'd be surprised what a charming and charismatic person could do.

Shoot 'em in the foot.

Small chance of dying, big chance of fun.

Very true .

[Patrick Vykkers]

I think they should separate society into at LEAST two castes. One for those deemed worthy enough to take the title of Human, and those of the moronic subspecies that seems to have evolved. Everyone who is Human gets guns. They earn more Human points (And what do points mean!?) by shooting the scum of the earth. And when they're gone, each other. The winner will WIN at life. And will spend a lonely, but SHOOTY time for the rest of his life.

I love that idea. In your society, can I go pedo shooting?

EDIT: Also, burglars chose to violate other people's rights. They deserve what's coming to them.

[Al the Vykker]

I'm for stricter means of obtaining guns, but I am not for massive gun control. Put weapons in the hands of officials, law enforcement, government, military, etc. you sacrifice your right to protect yourself. Criminals will always find a way to obtain guns and simply do bad things, citizens still should have the right to bear arms and protect themselves by any means necessary. It's a sacrifice the fact that yes violence will continue, but I don't think specifically here in America we need anymore of our civil liberties to be taken away from us and embrace the politics of fear.

[snuzi]

EDIT: Also, burglars chose to violate other people's rights. They deserve what's coming to them.

So you're saying stealing a television should be punishable by death?

[Nate]

Point of interest: Sullivan Act is one of the most strict and one of the oldest gun control laws around.

Guess where it applies ?? ( no extra credit for you snuzi )

That`s right, good old New York City been around since 1911 or so,
see how well its has worked.

Doesn't really count when people can get illegal guns from the rest of the state/country.


Extra point: I don't know what it's like in the rest of the world but if you are threatened, you can only use the same level of force or less than your attacker. So if he has a knife, you can't shoot him otherwise you'll be up for manslaughter charges.

[Venks]

So, you're saying that a person trying to save the life of another by shooting an assailant is stupid? And why shouldn't the public be allowed to wield firearms? What if someone breaks into your house, and intends to kill you?

No I'm saying the person who tries to save the life of another by shooting an assailant when they have no training with fire-arms and accidentally kill a bystander is stupid.

If the public don't have firearms then the person who breaks into my house won't have one either unless he obtained one illegally. Though by banning guns to the public its a lot harder for him to obtain one. Then again if someone breaks into my house with the intent to kill me their is little I can really do, if the person wants to kill me and I don't suspect it they have the upper hand.

[Havoc]

So you're saying stealing a television should be punishable by death?

Well duh...

Also what's this self defense bullshit?

What IF someone breaks into your house? What IF he wants to kill you?

What IF aliens land tomorrow and want to screw Jennifer Lopez in her current state?

All this what IF is not going to do you any good, especially since half of you probably don't have any shit worth breaking and entering for in the first place. Having a 50 inch plasma TV right next to the window however, like I have, is when you may start worrying about someone breaking in. It's also at that same point you should start thinking about getting an alarm system or double locks instead of buying a damn gun for when someone finally does break in.

We have a legal system for a reason and I think a specific rule that says that civilians can't be victim, judge and executioner all at once. You only get to be one of those, not all three.
In the entire gun legality debate, home self defense is the lamest reason ever especially if stop and think about what they are defending against. The argument is: If someone enters my home with a GUN then I need to have one too so I can shoot him just a little bit faster, despite the fact that I'm probably asleep. Now, the guy probably wouldn't HAVE a gun if they weren't so easy to get all over the damn place.
It's like saying you're scared of being hit by eggs, so you need some eggs yourself in case someone else has them too. Or you could simply take away the eggs and only give them to normal people who use them to make breakfast instead of throwing them around. Did I lose anyone with that metaphor? No? Good.

Havoc

[Patrick Vykkers]

In your hypothetical scenario, banning the eggs for that use would only cause the illegal egg-weapon market to go underground, making it harder to track, stop, or regulate. You need more than blanket bans, you need checks and balances, individual case by case workings, and to avoid emotionalistic appeal to exception fallacies (I suppose car bombing in Israel means that Arabs should be forbidden to drive cars).

[Havoc]

It's not being regulated or tracked right now anyway so what damage would that do? You know what happens when it goes underground? It becomes a criminal business, meaning that if you want a gun you can no longer step into a save store in bright daylight in a busy street. You'll have to go into a dark alley in the middle of the night where a very big black man with chains around his neck is going to sell you a gun for 50 times the old store price and may or may not shoot you after you paid him the money. Also being caught having a gun without a license would mean at least 1 year of jail time not to mention that you have no way of knowing if the gun was used in some holdup and is wanted by the feds. Any guesses as to what will happen if they find it with you?
Now I'm pretty sure that not a single petty burglar, nor any average Joe Smoe wanting to protect is property, is willing to go trough all that just to get a firearm. Firearm trade going underground is a GOOD thing, because it keeps the majority of the weapons OFF the streets and into the pants of said big bad black man. There's not any form of regulation, nor can the guns be tracked down. And we wouldn't be having this discussion right now if there WAS any kind of regulation.

Havoc

[Salamander]

I am extremely angry, I just wrote a massive reply containing my opinion on this subject, then the boards claimed I wasn't logged in and I lost my reply which I had been writing for quite a while. Needless to say I'm ****ing pissed.

It was basically that we would be safer if no one had guns.

[Havoc]

I'm guessing the board disagreed with your opinion and chose to dismiss it.

Havoc

[Voodoo Hand]

Firearm trade going underground is a GOOD thing, because it keeps the majority of the weapons OFF the streets and into the pants of said big bad black man.

Seems that would be the exact group you do NOT want to have guns.

Is this a quote from Havoc or Don Imus?

[Patrick Vykkers]

And so the gun market becomes a monopoly exclusively sold to gangs, which results in gangs with enough guns to make SWAT look like kids with BB guns. Which eliminates the problem of smalltime burglary, but increases the gang problem and causes many other deleterious effects such as greater intimidation, drug smuggling, mugging, piracy, hijacking, and more organized criminals. What is more dangerous, an unaligned bunch of unaffiliated infighting thugs, or a dangerous, organized, lethal, intelligent bunch of gangsters.

To put it simply, which would you rather have?

A lot of these

Some of THESE.

[Nate]

In your hypothetical scenario, banning the eggs for that use would only cause the illegal egg-weapon market to go underground, making it harder to track, stop, or regulate.

The illegal weapons market is already underground. What we need is to reduce the number of guns entering that market AND (though people seem to be forgetting this) to reduce the number of legal guns owned by people who don't need them until they start shooting people randomly.

[Havoc]

And so the gun market becomes a monopoly exclusively sold to gangs, which results in gangs with enough guns to make SWAT look like kids with BB guns. Which eliminates the problem of smalltime burglary, but increases the gang problem and causes many other deleterious effects such as greater intimidation, drug smuggling, mugging, piracy, hijacking, and more organized criminals. What is more dangerous, an unaligned bunch of unaffiliated infighting thugs, or a dangerous, organized, lethal, intelligent bunch of gangsters.

You know what the beauty of gangs is? They tend to leave petty theft alone and generally leave the public alone as well. Yea they would have a monopoly on guns, but they already have that. Only place you can get an AK if the gun store doesn't want to sell it to you is a gang. Heck you can get a bazooka if you pay them enough.
You have to understand how gang life works before you can say if it's bad for them to have a monopoly like this. Because there are two types of gangs. 1. The tupac/50cent/snoop dog teenage gangs. 2. The professional gangs.

Group number 1 is not a threat to arms trade because they are to stupid stay in it for long. What usually happens when these idiots get a gun in their hands is that they wipe each other out, so that problem solves itself. And if not they are generally not very careful about their business and tend to get arrested.

Group number 2 however is organized and exists of people who's gang inspired the rap music instead of the rap music inspiring kids to create a gang, if you get my point. These are the big guys who control entire cities, have police in their pocket and make money by shaking down store owners. These guys also have a monopoly on the gun market but they will never give up their empire to randomly go kill people. They already have stuff figured out and don't have any need to be doing it. If you take away legal weapons, the only place you can get them is with big organized gangs. And I think most people would rather install an alarm system before getting involved with these guys. And even better, if you life in one of these gang's turf then you can even pay them protection money and call them whenever someone is breaking into your house. Not only is it much more efficient, it's also much cooler to watch.

Havoc

[snuzi]

No I'm saying the person who tries to save the life of another by shooting an assailant when they have no training with fire-arms and accidentally kill a bystander is stupid.

If the public don't have firearms then the person who breaks into my house won't have one either unless he obtained one illegally. Though by banning guns to the public its a lot harder for him to obtain one. Then again if someone breaks into my house with the intent to kill me their is little I can really do, if the person wants to kill me and I don't suspect it they have the upper hand.

I doubt he'd shoo the gun off in the first place if he didn't know how to use it.

And even if they banned firearms, what would stop a burglar from bringing a knife or blunt object along with him when he breaks into your house? And even if he or she has the upper hand, you can still do something about it.

Well duh...

Also what's this self defense bullshit?

What IF someone breaks into your house? What IF he wants to kill you?

What IF aliens land tomorrow and want to screw Jennifer Lopez in her current state?

All this what IF is not going to do you any good, especially since half of you probably don't have any shit worth breaking and entering for in the first place. Having a 50 inch plasma TV right next to the window however, like I have, is when you may start worrying about someone breaking in. It's also at that same point you should start thinking about getting an alarm system or double locks instead of buying a damn gun for when someone finally does break in.

We have a legal system for a reason and I think a specific rule that says that civilians can't be victim, judge and executioner all at once. You only get to be one of those, not all three.
In the entire gun legality debate, home self defense is the lamest reason ever especially if stop and think about what they are defending against. The argument is: If someone enters my home with a GUN then I need to have one too so I can shoot him just a little bit faster, despite the fact that I'm probably asleep. Now, the guy probably wouldn't HAVE a gun if they weren't so easy to get all over the damn place.
It's like saying you're scared of being hit by eggs, so you need some eggs yourself in case someone else has them too. Or you could simply take away the eggs and only give them to normal people who use them to make breakfast instead of throwing them around. Did I lose anyone with that metaphor? No? Good.

Havoc

Actually I happen to also have quite a large plasma in my living room, as well as some other valuable electronics around the house. I mean, my father has a studio down stairs. So, there is always a possibility of someone trying to break into the house. Although, if they ever did, we would have the upper hand, as my dog would wake us up if someone were trespassing.

Also, take this into account: even if an alarm system goes off, it will take awhile for the authorities to show up and arrest the criminal, giving them the opportunity to steal from you, and/or harm your loved ones. Also, if you're living in a bad neighborhood, the chances of having someone break into your house are much higher, so in my opinion, it's a good idea to have some sort of other protection.

[Havoc]

If an alarm goes off and wakes up half the neighborhood (mine will ) then you really think a burglar is going to hang around and try to get your stuff? Even if the police would take 10 minutes to get there, half your neighbors are by now awake and you yourself are too. And unless you are dealing with some psychopath who is out to kill you specifically then he's going to run rather then complete his mission. But even then, even with a law in place that says you need a permit to own a gun, what's the problem? Just get a permit and have that 9 mil in your drawer late at night. I don't see the big deal.

Havoc

[snuzi]

Good point. Although, if we're dealing with a real psychopath, having the alarm go off would only add to the thrill of the act.

[Havoc]

The chances of a psycho breaking into your house are practicaly 0. The real world isn't some sort of horror movie.

[snuzi]

Actually, you'd be surprised as to how many are out there. 1 in 25 people are psychopathic, believe it or not.

[Havoc]

Yea but only 1 of every 500 psycho's is actualy going to break in and kill someone...