stingerhs Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 okay here's the short version: first, you must assume that a gun can be used by anyone, reguardless of their ability to accurately use it. assault rifles should be banned because anyone that uses one has a far greater capability to inflict on someone's right to live than any all other small arms weapons except for fully automatic machine guns. this is due to its ability to fire many rounds with the single pull of a trigger. for just about the same reason, shotguns should probably be banned. they fire dozens of pellets with a single pull of a trigger. although, these weapons are used for hunting purposes, and thus should be controlled more than other weapons, but not banned. high caliber rifles and pistols should be banned. although it is a single shot, the lethality of that shot is far greater than a shot fired from a smaller caliber rifle/pistol. for this same reason, magnum pistols should be banned. i'm looking at all of this from the standpoint that guns inherently can infringe on someone's right to live. its just that some guns can and do infringe on the right to live at a much higher rate than other weapons. that is why they should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 the only problem with your logic is this: a high caliber pistols is no more deadly than a low caliberpistol, if you get shot in the abdomen by either, you will probably die, same for heart, lung, head, etc. as far as your appendages go, neither will probably kill you. you have a possible point in thatt ARs are more deadly, but not shotguns. shotguns have a very limited range if using buck-shot, and if you are using slugs, then they fall into the same category as the other rifles which is this: all rifles are equally deadly, their accuracy is what makes them more powerful than pistols, and the fact that they are usually a stronger force than a pistol, all 5 of those weapons (high and low cal pistols, high and low cal rifles, and shotguns) are all used for hunting purposes too. ARs are a different breed of weapon, and the only thing that makes them more feared is their rate of fire, which, truthfully, some people can do with a quick trigger finger on a semi-auto, i have shot most of these weapons(exception of the high caliber rifle), and through their use, i know that they are all equally deadly, but all should still be legally owned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 not in every case. being shot by a 9mm as opposed to a .45 cal is quite different, even if your shot in the exact same place. a .45 cal has more weight behind it, and according to the laws of physics, thus has much more penetrating power. and also more damage inflicted. a 9mm doesn't have the same weight behind it, and thus will not cause as much damage. a magnum, even whenever it is the same caliber will cause more damage simply because it has a much higher velocity, and thus more force on impact. a shotgun, even when fired at a distance, still carries the potential to hit a target due to the sheer number of pellets in the shot. of course, slugs should be banned, period (forgot to mention that earlier). and, as you also mentioned, a shotgun with buck shot is extremely deadly at close range, thus, under that notion alone, a shotgun should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 i will concede to your point that a close range shotgun is more deadly ad medium- close range(15-25ft0, but at very close range(less than 15 ft), all guns are equal essentially and a 9mm is no less deadly than a .45, because even though the .45 is heftier, the 9mm is a lot faster, thus giving them compareable force and penetrating power, and magnums are more powerful than their countrparts, and i neglected to mention them in my earlier tirade. however, magnums are the equivalent of pistols as a high-velocity(sniper-rifle) is to rifles, though they may shoot the same caliber bullet, they are much faster and more accurate, giving them more force, however, seing as how i don't think there is any magnum under .357, anything that large is gonna hurt a lot anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch seing as how i don't think there is any magnum under .357, anything that large is gonna hurt a lot anyway There are 22 magnums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy There are 22 magnums. then i stand corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The reason pistols are a consideration is because they are faster in close quarters and easier to conceal, thus making them easier to commit crimes with. That's one reason that in the military officers carry handguns, while the regular grunts carry rifles. If one of your men goes nuts and you need to put him down (insubordinate in a combat situation, say) you've got a quicker draw than he does. Plus you don't have to lug around a heavy weapon that you won't be using as often. I'm not in the military myself, but it seems logical to me. Concealment, quicker in close quarters. That's why "sawed off" shotguns are illegal (modifying the gun so its easier to conceal and use at close range, ideal for committing crimes with). Frankly I'm undecided on the issue, however I don't think it's as cut and dried as some people have made it out to be (I'm not singling anyone here out of course), that either we ban all guns or do nothing or that banning guns will remove all gun related crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 hehe, sawing-ff shotguns is funny, but yeah, ever since guns have been in use, people have been modding them, my favorite has to be the "slip-trigger", in which simply rubbing the trigger or hammer will set off the gun(many criminals accidentally hurt themselves with this) but i think it is cut and dried, we should uphold the constitution, otherwise, what validity does it hold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You should also modify it if it becomes obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad You should also modify it if it becomes obsolete. Obsolete to you. American gun laws effect you in absolutely no way. So sure, it's easy for you to sit on high and look down on us "violent gun-toting redneck Americans" and scream ban at the top of your lungs. Just because you've been duped in your country into giving up your guns, doesn't mean you should spoil it for the rest of the "free" world. I however do own guns, and to add further relevance to my argument, I also happen to live in the United States. And I use guns in a lawfull manner, like I've stated a bazillion other times already. So why should I be disarmed and punished, if I'm not committing crimes or using firearms unlawfully? Because you can't have one? Come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 You know very well it has nothign to do with him not owning one. I very highly doubt he cares to ever own a gun, (if you do, my mistake) I live in american and I don't own a gun, and I really hope I never NEED to own a gun. I think the 2nd ammendment IS out of date and needs to at least be better defined, because it is far to general to really be an effective ammendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior You know very well it has nothign to do with him not owning one. I very highly doubt he cares to ever own a gun, (if you do, my mistake) I live in american and I don't own a gun, and I really hope I never NEED to own a gun. I think the 2nd ammendment IS out of date and needs to at least be better defined, because it is far to general to really be an effective ammendment. Well, this is getting repetitive. I don't mean to sound hostile when I say that. But the point isn't "need". I don't NEED to own a gun either. Hell, I don't need this computer I'm using to communicate with you on. They are things I enjoy, and WANT. I think it's fine if you or anyone here doesn't want a gun, or feel like they need one. I however, enjoy guns. It's a hobby. I know they're used to commit crimes and kill. But not by everyone that owns one. In fact, I'd wager the number of gun owners who commit crimes with them is significantly lower than the number of gun owners that use them lawfully. As far as the second ammendment goes, I really could care less what you did with it so long as it reads somewhere "Cap can have his guns, and continue using them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior I live in american and I don't own a gun, and I really hope I never NEED to own a gun. I think the 2nd ammendment IS out of date and needs to at least be better defined, because it is far to general to really be an effective ammendment. that was definately apart of my point. also consider that allowing anyone and everyone to carry whatever gun rolls off the assembly line is probably one of the worst ideas i've ever heard. for all we know, the person next to you in line for that .45 pistol or even better, the AK sitting on the rack could easily be a former convicted felon. by making guns available to everyone, you WILL endanger many, many more people. that is why the 2nd amendment should not apply to certain people, which i have stated earlier. (dang it, why can't you people read!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by stingerhs that is why the 2nd amendment should not apply to certain people, which i have stated earlier. (dang it, why can't you people read!!!) And speaking of not being able to read, I thought that pretty much everyone already knew that "former convicted felons" are not allowed to legally buy or own guns. I guess not. Otherwise, I'd say you have a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 And while YOU are capable of handling guns without committing crimes, not everyone is. Some people are able to smoke pot consistently without ever committing any crime(aside from the smoking pot...but were guns made illegal like pot is then your use of guns would also be illegal) and pot is banned, but not guns. In fact, fewer people commit pot-related crimes like murder than gun-related crimes, so pot should be more legal than guns. The point is that SOMETHING has to be done, and I KNOW that making guns more readily available to the public is NOT going to help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy And speaking of not being able to read, I thought that pretty much everyone already knew that "former convicted felons" are not allowed to legally buy or own guns. I guess not. Otherwise, I'd say you have a good point. actually, that was more or less in response to this: Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch point taken, however, don't you think that if the constitution allows us to own something, we should be allowed to own them? i can understand limiting their use, but not banning them edit: not that i think we should limit their use, but i can understand why people say it i do read the previous stuff, i was originally posting my opinion. someone decided to debate me. go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior And while YOU are capable of handling guns without committing crimes, not everyone is. Well would you, or would you not agree that the number of people that commit crimes with guns is lower than the number of people who own and use them lawfully? I am not the only one capable of handling guns and not committing crimes, I'm sure. Originally posted by ET Warrior Some people are able to smoke pot consistently without ever committing any crime(aside from the smoking pot...but were guns made illegal like pot is then your use of guns would also be illegal) and pot is banned, but not guns. In fact, fewer people commit pot-related crimes like murder than gun-related crimes, so pot should be more legal than guns. The point is that SOMETHING has to be done, and I KNOW that making guns more readily available to the public is NOT going to help Well as far as marijauna goes, I don't have a problem with it either. A few years ago (it may not be true now) there had NEVER been ONE traffic fatality that could be attributed solely to marijauna, yet people were dying by the fistfulls to alcohol related traffic deaths. Weird stuff. I happen to like marijauna, personally. Anyways, I don't think anyone wants to make "guns more readily available to the public". I agree there should probably be restrictions of some sort. The question is how do you make it hard for criminals or undesirables to obtain guns, and make it EFFECTIVE, and still keep law abiding (regarding firearms at least ) citizens like myself happy? Quite a dilema, I'd say. Originally posted by stingerhs actually, that was more or less in response to this: i do read the previous stuff, i was originally posting my opinion. someone decided to debate me. go figure. *AHEM* My bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe© Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 guns are very powerful way of saying that we are a free country, to protect ourselves and such and I can tell you we won't be giving that right up any time soon :charric: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Wow. Freedom with guns...I wonder why all those other free countries in the world don't have so many guns and are still free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Well would you, or would you not agree that the number of people that commit crimes with guns is lower than the number of people who own and use them lawfully? I am not the only one capable of handling guns and not committing crimes, I'm sure. I'm not convinced that that's the point. The point is that we have a PROBLEM. a BIG one with gun violence in the US. We've seen it forever that a few bad apples can ruin things for everyone else, and if it means that law abiding citizens must give up their guns so that we can go out to parties or to the mall or to SCHOOL without the constant worry of some pissed off teenager/adult who thinks that they'll fix things by shooting a few innocent people, then so be it. And I also don't have anything against Marijuana, I was merely pointing out that a LOT of people who are pro guns are very anti-marijuana, which is pretty hippocritical to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Wow. Freedom with guns...I wonder why all those other free countries in the world don't have so many guns and are still free... and oddly enough, everyone in iraq and affganistan had guns, but they weren't free.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.