Gun Ownership

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by Lugez

I don't "need" to own an xbox360 and ps3. I don't "need" the yuengling in my fridge. I don't "need" this electric kettle. I own all these things because I want them. People may not "need" guns, but that's hardly a reason to ban something. Necessity shouldn't be a factor at all in this debate.

Ever kill someone with a 360? No. And noone's saying you should ban guns, rather make sure any person can't just walk into a shop and buy a semiautomatic.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

Ever kill someone with a 360? No. And noone's saying you should ban guns, rather make sure any person can't just walk into a shop and buy a semiautomatic.

No, I haven't (though that would be an interesting scenario). What I'm saying is that necessity doesn't matter. What matters is how much of a danger guns can be to the public to warrant a ban.

And any person here can't just walk into a shop and buy a semiautomatic. Over here in NJ, the process to attain a firearms license takes a crapload of time. Then again, our state has one of the most strict gun laws.

If you walk into a gun store completely unprepared, they'll probably just laugh at your face and kick you out.

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by Lugez

No, I haven't (though that would be an interesting scenario). What I'm saying is that necessity doesn't matter. What matters is how much of a danger guns can be to the public to warrant a ban.

It does matter to an extent. In situations where a person's livelihood is in danger from the introduction of a piece of legislation, you have to consider whether what you're doing is really justified. However we haven't seen any proof that firearms are in any way necessary in the 21st century, and their usefulness is minor compared to the danger they pose to the general public.

I'm not sure about New Jersey, but you should see the Australian laws - anything in the shape of a firearm is considered offensive, even sticks

[Kitty.]

Banning guns is not a smart idea at all.
Then, people who want guns for self-defense will not have access to them.
The people who want to go rob and kill with guns will get them anyway. (banned or not)
I really don't see how this would benefit America.

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by Kitty.

Banning guns is not a smart idea at all.
Then, people who want guns for self-defense will not have access to them.
The people who want to go rob and kill with guns will get them anyway. (banned or not)
I really don't see how this would benefit America.

Please, please read what's been posted first. You have one of the highest gun-related homicide rates in the world. You also have some of the laxest gun regulations in the world. The two aren't a coincidence.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Lugez

I don't see why we have to argue "necessity" when it comes to the gun issue.

I don't "need" to own an xbox360 and ps3. I don't "need" the yuengling in my fridge. I don't "need" this electric kettle. I own all these things because I want them. People may not "need" guns, but that's hardly a reason to ban something. Necessity shouldn't be a factor at all in this debate.

..Um, yeah, just wanted to say this. Continue.

The reason necessity is an issue is because those other things most likely won't kill you, so it doesn't matter if you don't need them. However a gun that can injure or kill you it does matter whether or not you really NEED it.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Brandon

At short range, a knife is a potentially deadly weapon. At an arm's length, a .22 caliber pistol is more deadly. At a distance, unless you were a master knife thrower, the .22 caliber would win because you've got several shots in a clip and you have distance. You could put 5 rounds in a dude before he ran to you. You can also kill someone with your bare hands, so I can agree on your point, at least I think that's your point, but I kind of disagree at the same time.

Actually I have heard statistics that within 20 feet a person with a knife would be able to run and stab someone with a holstered gun before they got a shot off. Police train to reduce this number to 10 feet, and that is very hard, trust me.

I'm trying to get the money together to purchase the mother of all guns, the.... MG-42!!! As seen in Saving private Ryan...
Sadly I am selling my Arctic Warfare Sniper Rifle to get the money...

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Guile

I'm trying to get the money together to purchase the mother of all guns, the.... MG-42!!! As seen in Saving private Ryan...
Sadly I am selling my Arctic Warfare Sniper Rifle to get the money...

If you get it... c...can i come over and play?

[Guile]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If you get it... c...can i come over and play?

Just give me a time and place!

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by Guile

Just give me a time and place!

me two?... ill bring my m91-30 mosin,and some toys you probally never shot before :P

[kiwi_fish_bunny]

i dont know alot about guns but holy shit thats one awesome looking mother fuker (excuse my language )....

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by Union Of V

It does matter to an extent. In situations where a person's livelihood is in danger from the introduction of a piece of legislation, you have to consider whether what you're doing is really justified. However we haven't seen any proof that firearms are in any way necessary in the 21st century, and their usefulness is minor compared to the danger they pose to the general public.

I'm not sure about New Jersey, but you should see the Australian laws - anything in the shape of a firearm is considered offensive, even sticks

The bold is what we need assess. The piece of legislation should be justified based on whether a person's livelihood is in danger. Not based on whether a gun is a necessity.

...I'm not sure if I'm clear..

@Guile: ME. I. WANT!

[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by Lugez

The bold is what we need assess. The piece of legislation should be justified based on whether a person's livelihood is in danger. Not based on whether a gun is a necessity.

It's not just about whether someone's livelihood is in danger, there are many reasons why a gun may be necessary, that being one of them.

I think we've reached some sort of a conclusion here

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

If regular people do not own guns, the ONLY people with guns would be those that mean harm.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by I love dogs

If regular people do not own guns, the ONLY people wit guns would be those that mean harm.

Except for cops, and people in the military, and hunters... Besides what makes you think that regular people do not mean harm. In fact isn't the whole point of a gun to harm, whether in self defense or not?

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Except for cops, and people in the military, and hunters... Besides what makes you think that regular people do not mean harm. In fact isn't the whole point of a gun to harm, whether in self defense or not?

guns were designed as tools to hunt and protect.. so i guess your sorta right...

theres a difference between shooting someone in self defense and someone shooting someone with malicious intent.... i guarantee if guns get banned home burgalarys and robberys will increase....

im curious how would you go about compensate people if you banneed guns i know i have a couple guns worth upwards of 2000... would you expect people just to hand there guns over for nothing when they worked hard to purchase them and invested alot of time and money in them..

also how would you go about enforcing this ban.. knock on everyones door and say please hand all over your guns ? i know my answer would be i dont have any i lost them in a fire/boating accident....

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

guns were designed as tools to hunt and protect.. so i guess your sorta right...

theres a difference between shooting someone in self defense and someone shooting someone with malicious intent.... i guarantee if guns get banned home burgalarys and robberys will increase....

im curious how would you go about compensate people if you banneed guns i know i have a couple guns worth upwards of 2000... would you expect people just to hand there guns over for nothing when they worked hard to purchase them and invested alot of time and money in them..

also how would you go about enforcing this ban.. knock on everyones door and say please hand all over your guns ? i know my answer would be i dont have any i lost them in a fire/boating accident....

Oh I'm perfectly aware that a full ban on guns is not logical. However that doesn't decrease my desire for it. I feel that it's like pro-life people, if they are smart they know that abortion will never be illegal, but that doesn't stop them from feeling passionately about it.

[Guile]

Banning guns is like banning crime, noble, but just a stupid waste of time, noone will listen and you will be a laughing stock.