Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gun control

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 15>
Author
5ptcontingency View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 March 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 657
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 5ptcontingency Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:02am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I just don't see reasons as to why own so many guns unless your profession requires it. Hunting, of course, but there has to be a limit on something. There is no need for AK-47's to be on the street, even if they are fun to shoot. There is no possible way to ensure that only responsible people own guns, so talking in that manner is only a pipe dream.


But, why does AK-47 come to mind when you think of a dangerous firearm? The only legal AK-47 (unless you have the appropriate license) are semi-automatic. Disregarding the type of round the gun fires, it is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, or handgun at close range.


Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:02am
Counter criminals having them by giving them to "non-criminals?" Then you have cops getting shot at traffic stops by usual "non-criminals" that don't want to get a DUI. Putting more guns into the hands of even "non-criminal" people will cause gun violence to go up.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:04am

Originally posted by 5ptcontingency 5ptcontingency wrote:

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I just don't see reasons as to why own so many guns unless your profession requires it. Hunting, of course, but there has to be a limit on something. There is no need for AK-47's to be on the street, even if they are fun to shoot. There is no possible way to ensure that only responsible people own guns, so talking in that manner is only a pipe dream.


But, why does AK-47 come to mind when you think of a dangerous firearm? The only legal AK-47 (unless you have the appropriate license) are semi-automatic. Disregarding the type of round the gun fires, it is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, or handgun at close range.


You're very correct. I used it as an example of a gun not normally used for any other reason. You are right, but distinctions need to be made between weapons and appropriate usages for them. Such as shotguns and high powered rifles, which do have the ability to kill anything, but are primarily used for hunting. I am not for taking all guns away, but cutting into their amount might cut down the violence. Therefore, you can better control the guns still out there.

Back to Top
WGP guy View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Quoted F and S bomb.

Joined: 14 August 2004
Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep.
Status: Offline
Points: 1327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WGP guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:09am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Counter criminals having them by giving them to "non-criminals?" Then you have cops getting shot at traffic stops by usual "non-criminals" that don't want to get a DUI. Putting more guns into the hands of even "non-criminal" people will cause gun violence to go up.


Not exactly what I was saying.  I want laws to stay the same.  There is a 90 day waiting period (in NC) for concealed carry.  there is a 30 day wait for a handgun liscence.  If laws stay the same, gun violence should stay the same.  I am not saying make it easier for people to obtain guns, but don't make it harder either.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:10am
I see, my bad. It's a good law, but I think something still needs to be done. However I do not have all the answers, and my ideas of policies are different being an officer than if I was an avid gun owner that did not use weapons for a profession.
Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:10am
Maybe the solution is to teach or force better personal responibility upon people...

Hmmm... I am starting to think I might have a research topic for this semster.

Guns and criminals.

Edited by Hades

Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Tinkertoys Tinkertoys wrote:

I read a great book called Private Guns, Public Health, that just about debunks every major NRA argument. For those of us who believe in gun control, it is a great read.

-Tink


I just read a great piece that debunks just about every major argument you anti-gun folk spout out...
It's called the United States Constitution. For those of us who believe in our rights, it is a great read.

Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Originally posted by WGP guy WGP guy wrote:

Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:


Originally posted by WGP guy WGP guy wrote:

Originally posted by Badsmitty Badsmitty wrote:

Why have guns? To rise up when your gubment takes away rights? Oh wait, we already have the Patriot Act, mandatory random drug testing in the workplace and are holding "terrorists" without any legal representation. At least clay pigeons are being kept in check.
Well, guns are fun to shoot. I don't really know what you were implying there if anything, but I don't hunt, I just find joy in going to the shooting range and shooting targets. Its just fun.


Ok. Crack is fun to smoke. Why isnt it ok?


Because...its bad for you? I don't know. Most people that have guns don't use them in ways that harm others. Crack harms you. So you can't really compare that. Crack is always going to harm you, guns used in the right way won't hurt anyone.


They both have the potential to kill you. Even if it isnt on purpose, a bullet in the head is bad for your health.


What about pot? Pot dosent always harm people, should we make that OK?



Yes. Pot should be legalized and regulated.

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I just don't see reasons as to why own so many guns unless your profession requires it. Hunting, of course, but there has to be a limit on something. There is no need for AK-47's to be on the street, even if they are fun to shoot. There is no possible way to ensure that only responsible people own guns, so talking in that manner is only a pipe dream.


If it's a semi-auto AK-47, who cares?
The only thing "worse" about a semi-auto AK than a hunting rifle is the way it looks.
It's not a question of "need." We don't NEED ginormous SUVs (which kill more people than guns every year), yet we're still allowed to have them, because we live in a free society.
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:45am

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:



I just read a great piece that debunks just about every major argument you anti-gun folk spout out...
It's called the United States Constitution. For those of us who believe in our rights, it is a great read.

Chewp bring up a good point. Its in our constitution, so its one of our rights, right? right. But does anyone remember the simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun? Lisa says something to him about gun control, and homer says one of the most correct things he may have ever said, or ever will say.

He sais that we have the right to bear arms in case the king of england comes in and begins pushing us around. I didnt realize it at the time, but he is correct. The reason we have the right to bear arms is because when the constitution was being written, we were trying to gain our independence...and the fathers of this country wanted us to be able to protect ourselves if the brittish showed up at our doorstep. They meant nothing of having guns for fun or because they looked cool.

Hence, there should be a restraint put on some weapons.

And chewp, im not calling you out or anything, but there has been alot of using the constitution as a protection for rights that wasnt meant for us to have by the writers of the document...such as free speech, right to bear arms...etc.

Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:51am
I'm confused...
I'm not Choopie...

However, the Constitution can be interpreted several ways. As it stands, we DO have the right to keep and bear arms. It has never been ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court, and it's not likely to be any time soon.
Until that day (or until the Constitution is amended to say otherwise), we DO maintain that right.
Back to Top
BLand View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Guested - Complete idiocy

Joined: 29 July 2003
Location: Vatican City State
Status: Offline
Points: 2360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BLand Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:54am
Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

I'm confused...
I'm not Choopie...


Yeah, what?
Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:55am
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

im not calling you out or anything, but there has been alot of using the constitution as a protection for rights that wasnt meant for us to have by the writers of the document...such as free speech, right to bear arms...etc.



Umm, we are not supposed to have free speech because we dont have a tyranic king to complain about any longer?

Maybe the constitution writers liked to shoot animals, just not Brits and Indians.

If guns werent supposed to be protected by the constitution then why didnt they take them away after the civil war when the citizens just killed each other...


Edited by Hades

Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 10:57am

Ha....im a moron. I guess he was just on my mind or something. I dont see why though.

Anyway, you're correct. Its just annoying to see people using the bill of rights as an excuse to own assault weapons, or in school and use feedom of speech as an excuse to to call the teacher an asshole.

Back to Top
WGP guy View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Quoted F and S bomb.

Joined: 14 August 2004
Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep.
Status: Offline
Points: 1327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WGP guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 12:08pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

use feedom of speech as an excuse to to call the teacher an asshole.


Well, technically you can't do that.  You don't have all your rights when you are under the age of 18.  When you are at school, the school is your ward.  If they don't want you to say that, they can punish you for it.
Back to Top
PlentifulBalls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Tons of em’

Joined: 14 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9800
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlentifulBalls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 12:32pm
Three words.

Hitler.

Switzerland.

Amsterdamn.

sporx wrote:
well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 1:19pm

Originally posted by 5ptcontingency 5ptcontingency wrote:

The term "gun control" is too broad.

Best sentence in this entire thread.

NOBODY is simply against all gun control.  NOBODY.  The only question is "how much, and what kind"?

If we truly had NO gun control, then a retarded 7-year-old felon would be able to walk into the local 7-11 and buy an RPG, and carry it around with him, pointing it wherever he pleases.  Anybody who doesn't think that should be legal is not truly "against" gun control.

Talking about being "for" or "against" gun control is just silly.

Back to Top
636andy636 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested - Posting While Intoxicated

Joined: 30 November 2002
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 5890
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 636andy636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 7:21pm
right to bear arms.


bear arms are delicious!

in canada we have some strickt firearm laws. wich obviously worked when thos police officers were killed in Edmonton.


crimnals will ALWAYS get guns no mater what.

yeah. law abiding people wont kill somone? yeah right. people change. they could be intoxicated and shoot somone with there firearms. or they can be shooting in a safe invorment like a range and they can still kill somone. ricochets are deadly

people are WAY parinoied if they carry a firearm with you around town and stuff. how offen do you fell the need to use deadly force.

and seriously. does anyone need a assalt rifle?

Edited by 636andy636
nouseforaname wrote:
oh good, a mech gun with eye covers and a rippoff Jackel frame ... ANS - "Stealing ideas since teh begining"


Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:



I just read a great piece that debunks just about every major argument you anti-gun folk spout out...
It's called the United States Constitution. For those of us who believe in our rights, it is a great read.

Chewp bring up a good point. Its in our constitution, so its one of our rights, right? right. But does anyone remember the simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun? Lisa says something to him about gun control, and homer says one of the most correct things he may have ever said, or ever will say.

He sais that we have the right to bear arms in case the king of england comes in and begins pushing us around. I didnt realize it at the time, but he is correct. The reason we have the right to bear arms is because when the constitution was being written, we were trying to gain our independence...and the fathers of this country wanted us to be able to protect ourselves if the brittish showed up at our doorstep. They meant nothing of having guns for fun or because they looked cool.

Hence, there should be a restraint put on some weapons.

And chewp, im not calling you out or anything, but there has been alot of using the constitution as a protection for rights that wasnt meant for us to have by the writers of the document...such as free speech, right to bear arms...etc.



Thats part of it, but not all.

Remember why the colonists came here in the first place?  To sum it up, Their government sucked.  The constitution is based upon the Greek and Roman Governments (Direct and Representitive respectivley) and the writtings of several people.  A French writter (name forgotten) came up with the style of government we have (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) to prevent abuse of powers.  In his writtings he says (not perfect quote) "The Government's job is to protect the intrests of its people.  When it no longer does this, the people should no longer follow the Government".  I know I slaughtered that quote but you get the idea.  It was partly there in case the government turned into Britian again, allowing the people's militias to revolt.

I will partitally agree with Clark in that no one is completley against gun control.  I will admit that I dont like the idea of guns capible of fireing rounds that pass through bullet proof vests being on the street, but I do not like the idea of these guns being outlawed entirely.  Gun registration, testing, licences etc. Thats where gun control should be focused in my opinion.

Lincoln once said "If you Outlaw guns, only Outlaws will have guns". 
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
WGP guy View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Quoted F and S bomb.

Joined: 14 August 2004
Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep.
Status: Offline
Points: 1327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WGP guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 8:17pm
Originally posted by 636andy636 636andy636 wrote:

right to bear arms.


bear arms are delicious!

in canada we have some strickt firearm laws. wich obviously worked when thos police officers were killed in Edmonton.


crimnals will ALWAYS get guns no mater what.

yeah. law abiding people wont kill somone? yeah right. people change. they could be intoxicated and shoot somone with there firearms. or they can be shooting in a safe invorment like a range and they can still kill somone. ricochets are deadly

people are WAY parinoied if they carry a firearm with you around town and stuff. how offen do you fell the need to use deadly force.

and seriously. does anyone need a assalt rifle?


Well, in Wilmington while getting food, me and my dad saw what we seemed a kidnapping.  We say this black male (about age 35-45) kicking and shoving a black female (age 15-20) into an SUV at a gas station.  Had my dad bothered to bring one of his Colt 1911 .38 beretta, he would have probably gone and checked it out.


Edited by WGP guy
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 8:17pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by 5ptcontingency 5ptcontingency wrote:

The term "gun control" is too broad.

If we truly had NO gun control, then a retarded 7-year-old felon would be able to walk into the local 7-11 and buy an RPG, and carry it around with him, pointing it wherever he pleases.  Anybody who doesn't think that should be legal is not truly "against" gun control.



By the same token, WITH gun control it is potentially possible to entirely outlaw guns so you have a police force running around with bows and arrows.  I mean c'mon, its politicians deciding these things, do you REALLY expect them to use common sense?
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 April 2005 at 8:31pm

Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:


Remember why the colonists came here in the first place?  To sum it up, Their government sucked. 

Weeeeell....  that may be true for some colonists, but most folks that came over did so because they were looking for work, food, or a better life.  Nothing like a really long drought to make you want to take a boat ride.

Then, of course, there are the millions of colonists that came here in shackles.  I know which government they thought sucked the most.



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.133 seconds.