Guns in a shooting range or for a sports activity normally underly such a control as the organizers will either give the guns to the participants or control and check them. It is so to speak a safe environment. The average home is not. Not every citizen should be trusted with a gun but the American constitution grants every citizen the right to own one.
Except that's not how it actually works. You go to a gun range with firearms and ammo and shoot. The privately owned ranges are run by attendants, but there are free, public ranges where the people on the range are the only ones in control. And I don't feel in the least bit scared when I'm there. If someone is doing something glaringly stupid we tell them to stop it. If they keep doing it the group will make them stop it. My friend was at a range when someone was taken out at gun point because he couldn't keep his muzzle down. That sounds crazy, but it's really important. I've got a Mosin Nagant 30 caliber rifle and if I raise the muzzle as little as 15 degrees over the horizon I could probably shot a mile.
Also there are better activities to train your hand-eye coordination then shooting projectiles at a lethal speed, no matter what the target.
But they won't prepare you for the zombie apocalypse.
Omnutia talks about school shootings. I agree with him that people do not need guns, I however do not agree with his stupid "enjoy your school shootings" comment.
The obvious uses are marksmanship and hunting.
Hunting is cruel. Just look at the English, they sit on a bunch of horses, train several dozens of dogs to track one single fox and then 'hunt' the poor fox down. It's cruel, heartless and a pathetic way to waste time. Marksmanship, as Chaos said, is just practicing to aim better, and thus kill easier. People may practice Markmanship though, I don't care about that. They still don't need to have a gun for that. Just go to the shooting range, rent a gun and buy some ammo there, shoot up your ammo, return the gun and go home.
But they won't prepare you for the zombie apocalypse.
Anything that trains your hand eye coordination is sufficient against the hordes. It's all point and click, and the hordes are probably slow. I mean, if they are half decayed and can still run, you might as well just grab a magic book and practice/cast direct hit spells.
And Scott, how can you do 'great good' when you kill a person? True, you might do something good by killing someone corrupt, but you still killed a person, no matter the motive that can never be for 'great good'.
And you Americans should stop thinking you can overthrow the government with guns these days. You are just no match against tanks, choppers, bombers, machine guns and professionally trained soldiers.
So not even all the people who come to shooting ranges for practice can be trusted to use a gun properly. Thanks for proving my point.
About the school shootings: All of you talk about that more guns would give people the possibility to defend oneself in a school shooting. Do you guys think it should be a necessity to be able to or do you think there shouldn't be any shootings in the first place because those crazy guys shouldn't able to get their hands on guns?
I am also not talking about outlawing guns. I live in Austria. Hunting has a long tradition here and there are a few gun stores in my area. I do not agree with the ideals of hunting but I understand the human connection to it.
Anyways, I do not agree with the American system of gun control, possession and use. My thought is that gun licenses should be more like driver licenses. A person should have to proof that he is a responsible person who is familiar with and trained in the maintenance and use of a gun as well as making sure that his gun will only be used by him or by another person with the same training as himself. Only after that a person should be allowed the possession of a gun.
I think everyone is looking at the argument to broadly, ownership of guns can be both a good and bad thing to varying degrees. If guns were legalized in current day England (Stop using the term Albion, parts of Northen Ireland have been war zones until recently.) without any campaign to change public attitudes then there would be a sharp increase in gun related accidents as well as crimes. However, if owning a gun was on condition of military training then the rise wouldn't be as substantial. If such training and gun ownership was compulsory then we could theoretically drop gun crime to nominal levels. The problem with all this is you would need a dictator to do so.
@GeDavis: Oh be quiet you indigent bigot, I'm sorry if I touched a raw spot but don't go around saying "Albions" like some kind of derogatory term. Insulting the person who is making the argument is a sign of bad character. So, fuck you sir. Fuck you.
Just go to the shooting range, rent a gun and buy some ammo there, shoot up your ammo, return the gun and go home.
What makes the shooting range any more justified to own guns than anyone else?
And Scott, how can you do 'great good' when you kill a person? True, you might do something good by killing someone corrupt, but you still killed a person, no matter the motive that can never be for 'great good'.
I would call killing someone who threatens my families' life a great good. What about a "Hitler-esque" person?
And you Americans should stop thinking you can overthrow the government with guns these days. You are just no match against tanks, choppers, bombers, machine guns and professionally trained soldiers.
Tell that to the Afghanis who fought the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese gorillas, the French Resistance in WWII, or the insurgents in Iraq today.
About the school shootings: All of you talk about that more guns would give people the possibility to defend oneself in a school shooting. Do you guys think it should be a necessity to be able to or do you think there shouldn't be any shootings in the first place because those crazy guys shouldn't able to get their hands on guns?
The unfortunate matter is that it is pretty much impossible to prevent people from getting weapons no matter what laws you enact. Kids like Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold need psychological help, not laws saying "oh guns are banned so they are perfectly safe". To eliminate guns addresses the wrong issues in cases like these.
And you Americans should stop thinking you can overthrow the government with guns these days. You are just no match against tanks, choppers, bombers, machine guns and professionally trained soldiers.
If Iraq has taught us anything it's that an organized group of people with some IED's, AKs and pickup trucks can bring the might of the American military machine to its knees. You have to remember, Americas standing army is only 200,000 or so. If enough people stand up with a gun and say "no" the army is going to be pretty powerless to stop them. There are much more radical 2nd amendment advocates that say that anything the military can have the people should be able to have.
Anyways, I do not agree with the American system of gun control, possession and use. My thought is that gun licenses should be more like driver licenses. A person should have to proof that he is a responsible person who is familiar with and trained in the maintenance and use of a gun as well as making sure that his gun will only be used by him or by another person with the same training as himself. Only after that a person should be allowed the possession of a gun.
Trust me, I'd like to keep guns from stupid people as well, but it just not the way the constitution is written. It couldn't be that way even if we wanted it to be, the right to bear arms is really an all or nothing thing.
@GeDavis: Oh be quiet you indigent bigot, I'm sorry if I touched a raw spot but don't go around saying "Albions" like some kind of derogatory term. Insulting the person who is making the argument is a sign of bad character. So, fuck you sir. Fuck you.
Indignant is spelled with a N and an A. And you're calling me a bigot? Who's intolerant of other view points? The whole point of the post you responded to with the inappropriate school shooting reference was that we, meaning America and England, have different ideas on guns and we're really not gonna reach a consensus. You seem to think we're savages for wanting to have guns "just in case." I really don't care if England bans guns, cause I don't live there. If you completely trust your government to never betray you, more power to you. I don't have the same trust of my government, but my country was founded on overthrowing our government so I likely will never trust it completely. I'm not gonna even try anymore cause you have this "guns are evil" thing in your mind and it's way too much effort to change that.
Watch out Mr. Davids, he's reaching for something . . . Oh wait, he doesn't have a gun. Never mind.
Oh no, he has a butter knife! That's a lethal weapon inside 20 feet!
The unfortunate matter is that it is pretty much impossible to prevent people from getting weapons no matter what laws you enact. Kids like Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold need psychological help, not laws saying "oh guns are banned so they are perfectly safe". To eliminate guns addresses the wrong issues in cases like these.
Of course nothing is failsafe but I don't think making it harder for crazy people to get their hands on weapons or other hazardous materials is anything bad or "addresses the wrong issues". Of course psychopaths need help and they shouldn't get their hands on guns, but even if you make periodic mental health checks on every single person on the planet and look if they are healthy enough to use a gun, doesn't mean that they are trained to do so and will act responsibly. Or if you revoke their "right to bear arms" that it will be impossible for them to get one.
What I am saying is that before giving a person a license for a gun or a gun in the first place, it should be made crystal clear to them that possession and use of a gun is a responsibility for their own lives and the lives of others. The people you mentioned were able to obtain guns because some people did not act according to such a responsibility, and of course they didn't either.
@ gedavids: And you don't think that there is something a little bit wrong in the constitution then?
What I am saying is that before giving a person a license for a gun or a gun in the first place, it should be made crystal clear to them that possession and use of a gun is a responsibility for their own lives and the lives of others. The people you mentioned were able to obtain guns because some people did not act according to such a responsibility.
I don't disagree that weapons shouldn't be sold on street corners by men in trench coats, but letting the government control the flow of weapons is not a good idea either. The problem with required licenses is that what makes these licenses fair? Who gets to decide the requirements for owning a gun? I'm looking for limited government, not more government.
@ gedavis: And you don't think that there is a little bit wrong with the constitution then?
What I am saying is that before giving a person a license for a gun or a gun in the first place, it should be made crystal clear to them that possession and use of a gun is a responsibility for their own lives and the lives of others. The people you mentioned were able to obtain guns because some people did not act according to such a responsibility, and of course they didn't either.
I already covered this, and WaterIsPoison said the same thing, you can't have any sanctioning body limiting the flow of weapons, cause then who decides? In order for the right to bear arms to work it has to be unrestricted. And even that doesn't exist entirely in America, violent criminals are barred from gun ownership, but we dare restrict further.
@ gedavids: And you don't think that there is something a little bit wrong in the constitution then?
And for those who think we're crazy for wanting the ability to overthrow the government.
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It's not just our right to overthrow a corrupt government, but our duty as Americans.
I'm sorry since I am not an American I don't have to much knowledge about the specifics, but as far as I can tell there is no problem about the governmental regulation on who can obtain a driver's license. I might be talking out of my ass here though
While I do agree that the U.S. government is not the most trustworthy, I don't see anybody else being capable to make such a change or setting such standards and I don't see there being too much trouble with it since I am not talking about a ban here.
Anyways, I start to understand what I heard before that America is pretty much the only capitalist or socialist country on this planet in which the people are afraid of their government instead of the other way around.
I'm sorry since I am not an American I don't have to much knowledge about the specifics, but as far as I can tell there is no problem about the governmental regulation on who can obtain a driver's license. I might be talking out of my ass here though
Cars and guns really aren't the same thing and not really comparable. You don't buy a gun and have to go outside and interact with thousands of other gun users. "Guns are tools like anything else" is BS, I try not to delude myself that way. They're instruments of destruction, really nothing more.
While I do agree that the U.S. government is not the most trustworthy, I don't see anybody else being capable to make such a change or setting such standards and I don't see there being too much trouble with it since I am not talking about a ban here.
We don't see any one else either, so we try to avoid it. Don't misunderstand though, the USA is not the wild west, no one can just walk in to a legitimate gun store and buy one unquestioned. There are a lot of laws and regulations regarding gun ownership in America. So when we say we don't want a governing body deciding who gets a gun, what we really mean is we don't want them making any more rules, we've got plenty as it stands.
Anyways, I start to understand what I heard before that America is pretty much the only capitalist or socialist country on this planet in which the people are afraid of their government instead of the other way around.
We're not afraid of our government, just afraid of it becoming too powerful.
And Scott, how can you do 'great good' when you kill a person? True, you might do something good by killing someone corrupt, but you still killed a person, no matter the motive that can never be for 'great good'.
I would call killing someone who threatens my families' life a great good. What about a "Hitler-esque" person?
He's still a human being! And I said that it would be good yes, but will never be 'great good'. It would be a great good if you can stop the guy and send him to a psychologist.
And you Americans should stop thinking you can overthrow the government with guns these days. You are just no match against tanks, choppers, bombers, machine guns and professionally trained soldiers.
Tell that to the Afghanis who fought the Soviet Union, the Vietnamese gorillas, the French Resistance in WWII, or the insurgents in Iraq today.
The armies would suffer some casualties yes, they wouldn't be defeated, there's an important difference between those two things. So yeah, if you want to kill a few soldiers, go ahead. I'd be making my way out of the bloody country.
I think cars and guns are not to different from each other. You have to be of a certain age and need basic training and a permit to use either and if misused you could easily kill or severely injure other people or yourself, meaning you have responsibility when you choose to use either.
He's still a human being! And I said that it would be good yes, but will never be 'great good'. It would be a great good if you can stop the guy and send him to a psychologist.
Some times some one has to die. You're debating the word great, stop it.
The armies would suffer some casualties yes, they wouldn't be defeated, there's an important difference between those two things. So yeah, if you want to kill a few soldiers, go ahead. I'd be making my way out of the bloody country.
Not everyone is a coward, some people will stand up for what they believe in. Again, it's our duty to overthrow our government if it becomes corrupt. Try to understand that idea even if you don't agree with it.
I think cars and guns are not to different from each other. You have to be of a certain age and need basic training and a permit to use either and if misused you could easily kill or severely injure other people or yourself, meaning you have responsibility when you choose to use either.
But the line between use and misuse with a gun depends entirely on where it's pointed, it's true purpose never changes. A car is not intended to destroy, but it can if used carelessly.
The armies would suffer some casualties yes, they wouldn't be defeated, there's an important difference between those two things. So yeah, if you want to kill a few soldiers, go ahead. I'd be making my way out of the bloody country.
Are you kidding me? The Afghanis DEFEATED the soviets, the Vietcong DEFEATED us, the French Resistance played a key role in the Ally Invasion of Normandy, and the insurgents are effectively preventing America from establishing a stable government in Iraq. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Not everyone is a coward, some people will stand up for what they believe in. Again, it's our duty to overthrow our government if it becomes corrupt. Try to understand that idea even if you don't agree with it.
I posted whilst you and Chaos posted. So yeah, I missed those two posts. I still don't know why it would be your duty though.
Are you kidding me? The Afghanis DEFEATED the soviets, the Vietcong DEFEATED us, the French Resistance played a key role in the Ally Invasion of Normandy, and the insurgents are effectively preventing America from establishing a stable government in Iraq. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Right. I have never heard of that war between the Afghanis and Soviets, was told in school that yes the US suffered losses in Vietnam, but they didn't loose, as for Normandy, that was just a lot of boats, never heard anything about the French resistance having anything to do with it. History is boring and useless in general so I don't bother with it, and besides, at least in the Vietnam war, the US army was less advanced than now and fought in places where it was at a disadvantage. So sorry for being slightly misinformed. As for establishing a stable government, what does that have to do with it? Sure, it's not complete victory, but they haven't lost at all. And besides, those insurgents have machine guns, so I don't really see the US army losing to its citizens with no machine guns and no exploitable environment..
History is boring and useless in general so I don't bother with it
I may not be the a huge history buff or even very interested in a lot of things about it, however, I do know that history is NOT boring or useless in general. You should try bothering with it. ^_~
GeDavis, you have guns to kill people with, in both offense and defense. My spelling mistakes make your point so much more relevant. Well apart from teaching Gedavis he is a complete twit has anyone got anything meaning from this?
I posted whilst you and Chaos posted. So yeah, I missed those two posts. I still don't know why it would be your duty though.
Look at the quote I posted from the Declaration of Independence, it's one of the founding principles of the country.
GeDavis, you have guns to kill people with, in both offense and defense. My spelling mistakes make your point so much more relevant. Well apart from teaching Gedavis he is a complete twit has anyone got anything meaning from this?
Enjoy the school shootings :P
Yeah...I'm the twit...suuuuuure.
So do you understand at all why America has the right to bear arms?
Right. I have never heard of that war between the Afghanis and Soviets, was told in school that yes the US suffered losses in Vietnam, but they didn't loose, as for Normandy, that was just a lot of boats, never heard anything about the French resistance having anything to do with it. History is boring and useless in general so I don't bother with it, and besides, at least in the Vietnam war, the US army was less advanced than now and fought in places where it was at a disadvantage. So sorry for being slightly misinformed. As for establishing a stable government, what does that have to do with it? Sure, it's not complete victory, but they haven't lost at all. And besides, those insurgents have machine guns, so I don't really see the US army losing to its citizens with no machine guns and no exploitable environment..
Even though I'm against the legalisation of guns in general and you seem to be on that side, I'm going to have to argue against you here as you just called History boring and useless. You may find it boring but History is far from useless; for example, if the Americans and British had bothered to study the History of Afghanistan then they would have known that nobody has ever successfully invaded the country even though many have tried. And my third point; America did lose in Vietnam, thats why they fucking left the country when they known they couldn't win the war! Unless you are living in some sort of strange world where ending a war by retreating and not fulfilling your objectives isn't a defeat. That's going some even by our Dunkirk Sprint standards.
Right. I have never heard of that war between the Afghanis and Soviets . . .
Whaaa?!! Seriously, aren't you the one with the school where the average IQ is 140 or something? And you haven't heard of an almost decade long conflict that happened only twenty years ago and which has major implications for the troubles the region faces now?
. . . [I] was told in school that yes the US suffered losses in Vietnam, but they didn't loose. . .
Are you high?
. . . as for Normandy, that was just a lot of boats, never heard anything about the French resistance having anything to do with it.
You must be high.
History is boring and useless in general so I don't bother with it . . .
Oh, now I see the problem. You have contempt for the subject, yet you pretend to be a master of it. Well, the grownups are talking about history now. Maybe you can go play with your pokeballs. You'd probably find that more interesting.
From this thread Blech, Algebra, need a paper and pen for that. But that's because I just suck at factoring and did a bit too much of nothing during Math classes in high school. Would probably use the quadratic formula with a calculator, for that's how I learned it and that's how I know it.
Don't know history, don't know math, what do you know?
So sorry for being slightly misinformed.
Yeah, you are misinformed. Have you ever heard me talking about the Wii? No? Well, that's because I don't know anything about it. If you don't like history and you admit that you're misinformed, then maybe you ought to talk about something more your speed, like Rainbow Brite and Holly Hobbie versus the Smurfs and My Little Pony.
. . . so I don't really see the US army losing to its citizens with no machine guns and no exploitable environment..
See, we do have machine guns and we can exploit the shit out of our environment. That's why the King of England knows not to mess with us.
History is boring and useless in general so I don't bother with it
I may not be the a huge history buff or even very interested in a lot of things about it, however, I do know that history is NOT boring or useless in general. You should try bothering with it. ^_~
General history (read history learned before and during 1 and a half year of high school) is boring and useless to me. Boring is subjective, and useless is circumstantial. I do not enjoy general history, I however am slightly more interested in the history of technology, making history to me boring. Also I have no use for knowing anything about general history for it will not help me in my life, making it useless for me. Of course, if you are an archaeologist you probably find history fascinating and it's actually useful for you to know how a roman house was build and the rough lay out of it. Please take such things into account when commenting on a somewhat subjective statement.
1. Pump Action Shotgun - doesn't really matter what kind, Remington, Mossberg, Benelli, etc. I needs a pistol grip with a folding stock, 18 inch barrel, and a magazine extension.
2. Mosin Nagant - cheap, long range rifle. It also weighs 10 pounds so it makes a great club if the zombies sneak up on you while you're sniping. It also has a bayonet.
3. Grenades - You can never have too many high explosives.
Comments
And Scott, how can you do 'great good' when you kill a person? True, you might do something good by killing someone corrupt, but you still killed a person, no matter the motive that can never be for 'great good'.
And you Americans should stop thinking you can overthrow the government with guns these days. You are just no match against tanks, choppers, bombers, machine guns and professionally trained soldiers.
About the school shootings: All of you talk about that more guns would give people the possibility to defend oneself in a school shooting. Do you guys think it should be a necessity to be able to or do you think there shouldn't be any shootings in the first place because those crazy guys shouldn't able to get their hands on guns?
I am also not talking about outlawing guns. I live in Austria. Hunting has a long tradition here and there are a few gun stores in my area. I do not agree with the ideals of hunting but I understand the human connection to it.
Anyways, I do not agree with the American system of gun control, possession and use. My thought is that gun licenses should be more like driver licenses. A person should have to proof that he is a responsible person who is familiar with and trained in the maintenance and use of a gun as well as making sure that his gun will only be used by him or by another person with the same training as himself. Only after that a person should be allowed the possession of a gun.
I think everyone is looking at the argument to broadly, ownership of guns can be both a good and bad thing to varying degrees. If guns were legalized in current day England (Stop using the term Albion, parts of Northen Ireland have been war zones until recently.) without any campaign to change public attitudes then there would be a sharp increase in gun related accidents as well as crimes. However, if owning a gun was on condition of military training then the rise wouldn't be as substantial. If such training and gun ownership was compulsory then we could theoretically drop gun crime to nominal levels. The problem with all this is you would need a dictator to do so.
@GeDavis: Oh be quiet you indigent bigot, I'm sorry if I touched a raw spot but don't go around saying "Albions" like some kind of derogatory term. Insulting the person who is making the argument is a sign of bad character. So, fuck you sir. Fuck you.
What I am saying is that before giving a person a license for a gun or a gun in the first place, it should be made crystal clear to them that possession and use of a gun is a responsibility for their own lives and the lives of others. The people you mentioned were able to obtain guns because some people did not act according to such a responsibility, and of course they didn't either.
@ gedavids: And you don't think that there is something a little bit wrong in the constitution then?
While I do agree that the U.S. government is not the most trustworthy, I don't see anybody else being capable to make such a change or setting such standards and I don't see there being too much trouble with it since I am not talking about a ban here.
Anyways, I start to understand what I heard before that America is pretty much the only capitalist or socialist country on this planet in which the people are afraid of their government instead of the other way around.
Well apart from teaching Gedavis he is a complete twit has anyone got anything meaning from this?
So do you understand at all why America has the right to bear arms?
You may find it boring but History is far from useless; for example, if the Americans and British had bothered to study the History of Afghanistan then they would have known that nobody has ever successfully invaded the country even though many have tried.
And my third point; America did lose in Vietnam, thats why they fucking left the country when they known they couldn't win the war! Unless you are living in some sort of strange world where ending a war by retreating and not fulfilling your objectives isn't a defeat. That's going some even by our Dunkirk Sprint standards.
(Please don't kill me, I just think that you guys are taking it far too off topic, and it's getting epic enough to deserve it's own thread.)
2. Mosin Nagant - cheap, long range rifle. It also weighs 10 pounds so it makes a great club if the zombies sneak up on you while you're sniping. It also has a bayonet.
3. Grenades - You can never have too many high explosives.