Pro-Gun Anti-Gun.
 

I don't think it's any secret that I'm pro Firearms.

I see how they can be used in the right way and how they can be used in the wrong way.

I don't want this to turn into a flame war so,just state your personal opinions on the matter.

Try to refrain from attacking one another.


And answer one question.

If you had the chance to be taken to a shooting range by someone that knows what they are doing with firearms,would you take the chance and try it?

I didn't get a choice. My grandfather insisted on teaching me how to shoot. He said it was a skill everyone should have. I'm not a fan of guns though, I much prefer blades.

Thank you for posting and a blade is still a deadly weapon *Pats K-Bar*

Guns suck. If everyone who owned a gun would stick them in their mouths and fire, the world might be a better place.

What's your answer to the question though?

I'd try it. Obviously. I love guns, you know.

Well thanks for posting

Feel free to elaborate.

Gungungungungungungun. >=O

Frankly I think in today's uncertain society run by an ever power hungry ruling class I think guns are a safe bet. Sure King George is gone, but now we've got King Bush and soon to be King Obama.

As George Carlin said about flamethrowers "we're fucked if we have to go against the military", and the way things are going we'll have to eventualy if we want to keep our free will. God help us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nknAzQPHE

I have no problems with guns, only the idiots who wield them. Unfortunately that percentage seems to be an ever increasing one.

To answer the question I would try shooting a gun, sure.

'Schizo' doesn't begin to describe the above post.
EDIT: No. Before that one.

I have imbibed some alcohol, so this is going to turn into another rant...

I'm not "pro gun" but I'm pro freedom. Too many people overlook the fact that the passage of a law is in point of fact an exercise of force. A firearms ban is not a magic spell which causes the guns people have to turn into daisies and fluffy teddy bears to rain from the sky. It's the promulgation of legislative act which says, "Henceforth we shall force the citizenry, under threat of violent reprisal, not to possess firearms." Laws are only effective to the extent that they have teeth - i.e., inasmuch as they invoke the spectre of violence.

The ironical cherry on top is of course the fact that the people who are entrusted to carry out that dictate (the police) are inevitably equipped with firearms themselves. So what a gun ban advocate actually stands for is pointing guns at people, if necessary, in order to take their guns away and further deepen the divide between the police, and the policed. In my opinion, anyone who is for something like broad spectrum gun control doesn't have the qualifications to call themselves a liberal. What they actually are is a cookie cutter leftist acting based upon some knee-jerk reaction, who doesn't think about the positions held by the side they've aligned themselves with any more than does some reactionary Republican pig.

And I sympathize with limp-wristed leftists who want a less insane and violent world. It's what I want myself. But here in the real world we don't have the option of waving a wand and making the guns go away. All we have is a choice between some people having the right to firearms, and all people having the right to firearms. The former is a recipe for tyranny. The latter is a misfortune, but a misfortune only of the sort that nature saddles us with, like it or not. The real question being whether we want to make things even more sticky than they already are.

It's the same reason I oppose most drug laws. The question is not "Should people be allowed to take drugs?" or "Is it a good idea for people to take drugs?" It's "Do we feel like the taking of drugs is so dangerous that we have a right to use violence to stop it?" The clear answer is "Hell fucking no", and it holds equally in the case of firearm ownership.

Every time you cast a vote in favor of illegalizing something, imagine that you're cracking someone over the head with a billy club. What you're actually doing is something very much like that, and if you pretend otherwise you're kidding yourself.

Thanks for posting,you're cool in my book.

Your answer to the question though?

The stats speak for themselves.

Keith Olbermann did a bit on this a while back. Since 9/11 there have been a couple hundred thousand gun deaths in America. They average about 30,000 A YEAR, about 82 people a day. On top of that another 64,000 are injured each year by guns in America, about 176 a day.

In countries where they have laws banning gun ownership (except for hunting related), like the UK, Ireland, and most of Western Europe, they have a few dozen gun deaths a year.

Whats amazing is trillions of dollars are being poured into fighting 'terrorism', while guns in America have killed a hundred times more people than any terrorists have ever be responsible for, and there has been no legislation or funding for stopping those deaths. In fact, since bush took office they have repealed many of the fully auto bans (or let them expire) and introduced legislation to allow more people to carry concealed weapons.

That being said I live in a country where handguns are illegal, and you can count the number of gun related deaths on your hands. Also, the police don't carry guns and yet we still have a lower crime rate than most American townes.

I feel perfectly safe, even more safe than you ever feel walking streets in America.

Thank you for posting.

But what's your answer to the question in the O.P. ?

I'm pro-gun.

I'm from a state that gave me a gun at the same time they weaned me off the bottle. I think my father taught me to shoot properly though when I was 12 or 13. Snipers had always fascinated me, and their ability to be that precise under that much pressure.

I would love to go to the shooting range, are you offering?

I'm on the other side of the country but wouldn't mind teaching someone to use a weapon the right way.

I was meaning someone maybe closer to you that was into firearms and has safe gun habbits.

Yeah I was kind of joking, you really wouldn't want to take my anywhere with a gun. I have a tendency to hurt myself and others in strange, clumsy ways... I'm like a deathtrap.

Well, I'm a licensed gun collector, and an NRA member, so I'm sure you can figure out what my stance is on the matter. ;)

I go to the shooting range regularaly.

And, I'm getting ready to pick up my FN P90 that's been on layaway, I'm UBER excited!

I'm anti- Firearms.
People use them for the wrong reasons now. And also, people can make mistakes. And, in they eyes of a Karate student, the use of weapons to defend yourself is seen as cowardice.
People are too scared to use their hands to fight.

Well your fists and feet are weapons as well.

Thank you for posting.

In my case, the question is not hypothetical. I have been along with people who know what they're doing to shooting ranges on many occasions. So obviously the answer is "Yes".

Chelseagirl-

Congrats on the P90 I've heard they shoot like a pepped up 22.magnum (Although it would be like a suped up .17HMR)

Let me know how it goes.

And thanks for posting

Yeah, but they're not the same as a knife or a gun or a crowbar, are they?
More than likely, any of the weapons that I mentioned will kill you. Infact, 9 times out of a ten, if you're whacked on the back of the head by a crowbar, you're going to die. If you're shot, you'll probably die. If you're stabbed, you'll probably die. Why? Because you'll either be hit dead on in the most vulnerable place on your body or you'll probably bleed to death.
If someone punches you when they're not aiming at a vulnerable spot (one that could kill you) you'll probably be knocked to Hell but survive a minor punch to the nose.
My point is that your fist and feet aren't deadly weapons.

Okay,but what is your answer to the question from the O.P.?

I don't know. It can't be as fun as kicking the shit out of a punchbag or shooting arrows on an Archery range.

It's fun and a challenge if done safely,and requires heavy discipline.

Again thank you for posting.

So does Karate.

And I'm not saying that it doesn't

I know you're not. I'm just saying.

Okay cool then

I was a pretty accomplished target shooter when I was a kid (6th grade - high school). And I'm completely anti-gun. Ironic, yes?

Well that's your personal choice,thanks for posting.

I'm pro gun. I agree with Drake as well.

Guns are bloody fun.

I also think guns are too heavily ingrained in American culture to ban entirely.

It would require the police to systematically go door to door of every home in America and take their weapons. Talk about a bloody shit storm.

I'd hate to think how far someone like Bush would have gone if the people didn't have the right to guns.

U called bby?

Oh fuck, I love you.

BTW, FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

FUCKCOCKSHITDICKPISSFAGTITSASS!!!!!!111
******textfuckshitbitchcock

You mention Karate one more time and I'm gonna shoot ya from ten paces.

I don't have a single problem with guns. I'm actually fairly decent with them, though in general I don't have much to do with them. I don't really worry about the average gun owner; the only people I worry about coming after me with guns or the like are the same people who I figure would use knives or pointy sticks. Nuts is nuts, whether or not you are armed.

No, they require careful selection and framing to make your point. Lying by omission doesn't hurt, either. Comparing the number of gun deaths to the number of people killed in the WTC attack is a great way to piss off right wingers, but it doesn't shed light on the real scope of the problem. A right wing pundit can play the same trick as Olbermann by choosing his numbers carefully and ripping away the context too. Watch this:

"Did you know that if you add up all the people murdered with guns in this country in one year, it's barely half a percent of the people who die?! Half a percent!"

"Did you know that even if you add all the gun suicides to the gun murders, the number is still lower than the number of people of people killed by septicema? Do you even know what that is? If you know what septicema is, you tell me, because I don't. Why isn't Keith Olbermann screaming about septicema?"

And yes, he would be telling the truth. But let's skip the punditry and look at the real situation. We'll stick with deaths, since we can get real numbers for those from the CDC. If you know a good source for comparing non-fatal problems, I'm all ears.

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Ag...ex%202005.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...ulation_growth

The first thing to notice is Olbermann's choice of the term "gun deaths". Why this choice? Because to get the numbers as high as possible, he has to put in all the suicides. If you figure that the U.S. population was right around 300,000,000 in 2005 and do the math you get the following:

About 17,100 suicides by gun per year.
About 12,600 homicides by gun per year.
About 1,200 gun deaths by accident and undetermined intent.

Add them up, and you get about 30,000. Now let's put those numbers in some kind of perspective in terms of what they mean in a country of 300,000,000. Here are a couple leading killers:

About 831,900 deaths by cardiovascular disease.
About 551,400 deaths by "malignant neoplasm" (cancer).

And here are a couple killers that are closer to the range of combined gun deaths:

About 73,800 deaths by diabetes.
About 59,100 deaths by pneumonia.
About 45,600 deaths by motor vehicle accident.
About 42,900 deaths by nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis.
About 33,600 deaths by septicema.
About 23,700 deaths by accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances.

So twice as many people are dying from either diabetes or pneumonia (take your pick), and the list of things which are killing more people really does include stuff you've probably never heard of. Remember, this is after putting in all the suicides. When you put his numbers in perspective, the plague of gun violence Olbermann is painting for you simply doesn't exist.

To make a full appraisal of the situation and reflect upon our options in view of the best information, we would have to consider questions like the following:

* Do we really want to lump suicides in? Is suicide even a crime?
* How many gun suicides and gun homicides could we actually prevent with gun laws?
* How many of those gun deaths would simply become deaths by hanging or knifing instead?
* How much would it cost to enforce a gun ban? Might that money be better spent fighting cancer or making roads safer?

And so on. Personally, I don't reach those questions, since even if we pretend we could just wave a magic wand and make all the gun deaths go away the numbers are already low enough for me that the interests of freedom prevail. If someone wants to put some energy into those questions and make an honest case for gun control, I'll certainly listen.

Although difficult (due to differing definitions, data collection methods, etc.), comparing the figures in the United States to the figures in other countries is a potentially useful way to shed light on the situation. But right here you're just cherry picking again (and exaggerating). What you would need to do to make a serious case is find a country with similar demographics and general crime figures, with similar socioeconomic factors. Or find one that's vaguely close, dig up causative or at least correlative relationships, and make appropriate adjustments. Or at least take an average across the globe of the relevant figures. You could then use that as a control against which to compare the numbers you're getting out of the United States.

If anyone wants to do that, I'll be fascinated to see the results. In the meantime, I'm still waiting to see a case for gun control that doesn't rely upon distortions and lies. To be honest, I think a lot of gun control advocates are actually hot and bothered about it purely because they know how much it pisses off the right wingers. It's like Rush Limbaugh making songs out of chainsaw noises and playing them on the radio. Pure antagonism.

Are you arguing that since other countries have a lack of crime comparatively to America that its not fair to compare them to America because that influences the number of murders and thereby effects the number of gun deaths?

The bottom line is looking at simple numbers, not factoring in crime rates or socio-economic factors shows America has a high rate of gun deaths. I would argue many of those could be avoided and there would even be a reduction in the crime rate regardless of socio-economic factors if guns were removed from the equation.

Why? Do you suck at it or something?
2nd Degree Black Belt, baby. 2nd Degree.
I trained with probably the most harsh and violent Sensei in Scotland, maybe even Britain. He was voilent, but he was a good Sensei and he really taught you how to defend yourself in a fight, and I'm not tlaking about Highschool fights. I'm talking about Street fights.

Just because in the UK we have banning laws, doesnt mean a fuck load of people illegally own weapons. It worries me to know how easy they are to get hold of, and in the wrong hands I dont like them. That said, I would most deffinately go to a range if I had the opportunity. Theres something so, appealing, about guns.

Well, like The Joker says, guns are too quick.
Man, I love the Dark Knight. Heath was amazing in that.

And remember that was only a movie much like Rambo or any John Wayne film.

Looks at double K and quotes old Rooster "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!"

Among other things, yes. Put simply, I'm pointing out that you have to isolate your variables if you want your figures to have any meaning. That's basic science. What we really want to know is not how America stacks up against Ireland. It's how an America without a gun ban stacks up against a hypothetical America with a gun ban. We only bring in other countries as an indirect way of getting as close to that information as we can, since we can't just settle the question with a lab test the way we would in a hard science.

Well... let's assume you want to keep the suicides in (I wouldn't, but whatever). It's probably much easier to kill yourself or someone else with a gun than, say, a knife. Less fear and/or moral repulsion to overcome, I would think. So yes, I agree that a gun ban probably would result in a drop in those figures. Exactly how much they would drop is anyone's guess.

For you, that may look like a QED for gun control, but if you look at the bigger picture it's not that simple. It sounds grand to say that if we can save even one life, we should do it, but there is a cost paid in the coin of freedom for every act of positive legislation, and at a certain point it's simply not worth it. Especially when you factor in other things like the balance of power between the government and the governed.

The same line of argument as would have us throw up our hands and enact a categorical gun ban could be used, much more effectively, to not only continue the U.S.'s current war on drugs, but expand the scope of it to almost every intoxicating substance under the sun. We could save more lives by getting rid of cigarettes or alcohol than by getting rid of guns, but I doubt any of us is going to get on board with that. Sitting here in an apartment in Tokyo and sipping wine, it would be very easy for me to advocate giving away the rights of other people to own firearms, since I don't want one very much anyway. But one man's trivial privledge is another man's treasured freedom.

Then there's just the basic morality of it. It's like I said before. A gun ban is not a magical spell. It's an order to the police that they will force people to comply with under threat of violent force. The same as any other law. So what you're basically saying when you support it is, it's okay to point a gun at someone, if necessary, to take away their gun. It's rankly unegalitarian.

Yes,and that would result in open firefights with said officers (Not by all but some hardnosed folks that won't hand them over until all ammunition has been expended,or until they are wheeled out in a covered gourney)

It would only cause mass fear and violence from a law that would go against it's very purpose,which others try to sell as a cure all.

In effect if there were enough of those hardnosed individuals,that hung in until the last,we would see a social tidal wave to the effect of a second civil war,at least in my opinion.

I have to ask would anyone get behind a law that restricted freedom of the press,or speech?

Not right now,but my theory is that if the second falls so will the rest of the Amendments in the constitution,only not as slowly.

Is this firearm debate only about the US?

Also about the keeping the government in check point, I really do wonder if people would take any action under most circumstances, even with weapons.

I'd love to go on a shooting range, but not to train to defend myself, just for fun. Most people here (UK, not gnet) seem happy with a ban on firearms, and I have no problem with that, even if it does stop me being able to target shoot. Although, I believe there are legal ways to go on a range here, it's just very controlled and I'm lazy. And collecters can buy deactivateds. Yeh it still hits people wanting self defence.

Same here in Canada, Raptor. You can own a gun if you have a license, and thats usually rifles and shotguns, I'm pretty sure handguns are banned altogether, unless you have a good reason. No one cares, when the gun registry came into play and you had to pay, dad just sold his rifles (they were antiques collecting dust).

As far as I know handguns are banned in Canada.

I've also heard that the permits are at the end of a lot of red tape.