It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why guns are good, why guns are bad.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne...which means the government does not have the right to ban or restrict them in any way.

The only type of ban on guns that I can agree with would *have* to fall under these conditions:

1: In all cases where the person has prior conviction of violent criminal actions, guns of any type should be banned for *that* person. By having shown such flagrant abuse of the Right to Bear Arms, he/she forfeits that Right.
2: Handguns intended to be carried with the person on a regular & consistant basis; If the person is not military, law enforcement or can't show a real *need* to carry such self-protective weapons, handguns should be banned. There should not be a ban of this type if the owner leaves the handgun in his home. There's a high risk of civilians using a carried handgun in the "heat of a moment" or any such situation where use of a gun would be inappropriate or unecessary to allow the average citizen the right to carry one on a regular basis. Handguns should have *restrictions*, but not bans.
3: In the case of rifles (or shotguns), any non-automatic gun should not be banned or restricted. In this case, "automatic" refers to a weapon's ability to fire more than one shot with a single sqeeze of the trigger. Automatic weapons should have *restrictions*, perhaps even only used routinely by military or law enforcment agencies, but even the average citizen should be able to pass courses in gun safety, demonstrate the ability to handle the weapon safely in the presence of qualified marksmen & obtain some sort of lisence to obtain one.
4: Ammo that specifically designed to defeat body armor should be restricted to miltary or law enforcement agencies...There's no good reason why a civilian would need Teflon-coated bullets to hunt wild game for food (
). If an intruder into a gun owner's home wears body armor, it's highly unlikely (possible, but unlikely) that the intruder can't still be stopped by a bullet to the leg or arm...Areas that aren't normally covered by body armor.

Personally, I prefer a sword for home defense...No chance exists whatsoever that I might kill a neighbor on the other side of a wall if I miss my target! My home also has *no* large, open areas that would prevent me from closing in on an intruder, even if the intruder is armed with a gun.

...And my sword has a much longer reach than any mere knife!
"I'll see your six inches & raise you thirty."



[Edited on 2-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]




posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I'll agree to your first point, M-D, to some extent. It'd have to be a case by case basis.

The rest are questionable, though. All weapons, automatic and semiautomatic, and all amunition, must be made available to the public, considering what the 2nd amendment is for. Don't get caught up in that scare tactic crap Sarah Brady tries to pawn off. The Black Talons would not cause hundreds of police deaths.

A sword would not work in my house, with the narrow hallway and small rooms. My revolver is the optimum weapon. Soon, I hope to build a house that would accomodate a shotgun with #4 shot. That'd be best for stopping an intruder, plus, it shouldn't travel through to your neighbors' bedrooms.



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Nans, I would like to hear your response to what I could have done in this exact situation were it not for a handgun....


Many years ago, I lived in an apartment in a less than nice neighborhood (we can't all afford to live in the nice neighborhoods). My girlfriend at the time let herself in one night kind of late, about 10PM, and shut the door behind her (thankfully, locking it). Within 30 seconds, there was a heavy knock (more like a pounding) at my door, and a demand to open up. I looked through the peephole and saw 4 very large guys outside, and they were getting insistent about opening the door (they had seen a single woman enter, didn't know I was inside).

In the next 5 seconds, I got my girlfriend to lay down in the bedroom closet, tossed my cordless phone in with her and told her to dial 911, while I returned to the front door with John Moses Brownings most famous invention, the 1911A1 .45. I told them in no uncertain terms to leave, and that I was armed. I racked the slide to make my point. All 4 of them looked at each other for a second, and then the largest decided to kick my door in. About the time my door parted from the doorjam, I fired one round, lucky for the adversaries no one was hit, but they all suddenly decided they had somewhere else to go. I then spent the next 6 hours talking to police, filling out paperwork, being questioned, and generally doing things that I would rather have not done at 3 AM. The police later that night/morning found 2 of the 4 (the other 2 were later found, as thier friends rolled over on them) and I had to ID them all in a lineup. Because they were local wannabe gangbangers, I had to break my lease and leave my apartment complex (costing me a LOT of money).

My point is that I was confronted with 4 very large UNARMED men who no interest in anything except inflicting death or serious bodily injury on me, and sexually assaulting my girlfriend. Had I not been armed, I have no doubt, I would have been overpowered and killed, and my girlfriend gangraped at the least. My only regret of the time is that I didn't have a 12 guage shotgun to answer the door with instead of my .45.

Nans, in that situation, what would you have done?????

While on the subject, I read a story last week (unfortunately, dont have the link to it) regarding violence against women in Paris slums... women in these slums must dress and act as men, or they are harrassed, assaulted, and occassionally killed by the men. (One story included a woman who was burned to death in a dumpster becase she refused sexual advances of a man).... If these women had the opportunity to follow thier sisters in Texas, Florida, and other states and obtain Concealed Handgun Carry Permits, I would imagine that such violence against women would suddenly stop altogether, and these women could then walk the streets without fear.

Midnight DStroyer, I have to admit that a sword is a novel home defence weapon, although illegal in my state. If I were a 5th degree blackbelt, I might agree with your choice (I am aware of the severe injury capacity of most edged weapons), but the vast majority of us dont have those kinds of skills. I would still prefer to have the capacity of inflicting stopping power at a longer distance than offered by a sword.



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 04:47 PM
link   
had become sexually aggressed by a raper. The agressor passed by the window to come in her apartement and attacked her with a electroshoker weapon.

These weapons, non-lethal, are selled in weapons store in France for the weak persons (3rd aged, women) or the all night open stores. But in this case, agressor used this weapon to attack someone.
It's the same problem with guns or Lacrymogen sprays.

Peoples think that since a few mounth ago, Interior minister Nicolas SARKOZY do a good job. He increase police effective and credits.
It's efficient but freedom is reduced, by the same way...



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I prefer silent weapons like sword and knives.
I've been in gun fight for a several time, and I just hate the bang

[Edited on 2-3-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Nans, I sympathize greatly with what happened to your Aunt. However, I would point to that as an instance where a law abiding citizen, lawfully armed with a firearm would have resulted in a much different outcome.

There was recently a story widely reported in Israel, but hardly reported at all in the US media: A suicide bomber walked into a supermarket in Tel Aviv. A middle aged housewife spotted him as he was rigging his bomb for detonation. This middle aged housewife drew her legal Browning HiPower from her purse and fired several shots into the suicide bombers brain, killing him instantly before he could blow himself up. It was estimated that this woman saved several dozen innocent civilian lives.



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 08:12 PM
link   
while swords and knives are fun, they are a weapon that takes much skill and training to use without hurting yourself while using it. however to use a gun you only have to have minimal training and it's baisically just point and pull the trigger. when you are being assaulted you don't really have your witts about you to think about slashing tecniques, wheras with a gun all you have to do is point. so it's also an ease of use thing.



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 10:09 PM
link   
An old, but very accurate truism....

God made all men (and women), but Sam Colt (and John Moses Browning) made them equal.



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Dragonrider I would like to shake your hand for handling that situation at your apartment the way you did. It's rare that you find people that can think under pressure like that, and think about your girlfriend before your self.
I woulda shot more than once though... clean up the neighborhood a little. But TC is right... too much paperwork
Good work buddy!



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Grunt Ignited,

Thank you for your response. I would like to think that I did act cooly, truth was I was about to $h@t my pants at the time! My thoughts did center on my girlfriend, as I was well aware she was the reason these thugs were pounding on my door.

Actually, after the police responded, one officer told me (No Lie, he really told me this) it would have been better to allow them to break it, take cover behind my couch and take all 4 with chest shots. It would have made the night easier on all involved.

I did learn a few things that night... first and foremost, BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS. Second, when someone pounds on your door at night, dont go see who it is WITHOUT A FIREARM. Third, practice and experience (which I seriously lacked at the time) are things that are very valuable, and I have taken steps to make sure that is no longer a problem. I practice on a weekly basis, and have a specific "practice ammo budget".

I have also gone to the expense and effort to be trained by some of the best, and believe myself to be much the better for it (for any who are interested, I HIGHLY recommend Thunder Ranch)



posted on Mar, 2 2003 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I can understand having handguns, but assualt weapons. I mean come on what does anyone need an assualt rifle for ? ( I think I even read somewhere that in Colorado you can buy an M60 machine gun ).
In my opinion no one should be able to buy military assault weapons, as there really is no justification.



posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Soon, I hope to build a house that would accomodate a shotgun with #4 shot. That'd be best for stopping an intruder, plus, it shouldn't travel through to your neighbors' bedrooms.

If I were to use a shotgun for home defense, rock-salt loads work rather well...Less lethal (Although there's still a chance of lethal wounds at close range, the chance *is* reduced) but extremely painful & less likely to penetrate a wall than regular shot-loads...


As for my other points above that you've not entirely agreed with, my reasoning goes along the track of removing more of the "human error factor" for home-safety's sake than any other reason. No matter what type of limitations or restrictions are used, criminals will *always* find a way to be able to outgun the police & there will always be at least a few ignorant SOB's that slip through the system.

As for the use of a sword, I *am* trained and practiced in using them...I just pray to God I never have to use one on another human being. A sword also carries a "shock factor" because the average intruder never considers the possibility of having to face a trained *swordsman in close-quarters* in this day & age...


Originally posted by dragonrider I would still prefer to have the capacity of inflicting stopping power at a longer distance than offered by a sword.

I'm trained in more than just sword-use...For limited distances (such as within my home), thrown weapons can be quite effective for ranged-attack...



Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS I prefer silent weapons like sword and knives.
I've been in gun fight for a several time, and I just hate the bang

A touch of Brontophobia, perhaps?...
Then again, unless you decapitate the intruder first thing, his screams would wake up the neighbors just as effectively as a gunshot would...



Originally posted by AegisFang when you are being assaulted you don't really have your witts about you to think about slashing tecniques, wheras with a gun all you have to do is point. so it's also an ease of use thing.

This is why training & practice are designed to work the moves into "reflex actions"...So you don't *need* time to consider the "basic moves" while you consider your alternatives for strategy. The moves can be performed without any real "conscious consideration", so more of your mind is free to consider other decisions.



posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I prefer silent weapons like sword and knives.
I've been in gun fight for a several time, and I just hate the bang...(Yesterday, I hadn't time to finish my post)

...of a gun. As a girl, I can hardly use an heavy metal gun to defend against an agressor. I prefer light weapons like knives, phazer or spray. It's true that their are in fact a few person trained to use knives, sword or nuntchakus, and an agressor, in a small place such like a house cant stand against these kind of weapons.

Remark... this remember me the story or martials-arts :

In middle-age japan, weapons had been strictly forbidden and reserved to shoguns samurai.
Hellas, thieves and ronins (thieves samurai) racketed farmers. Some of them invented a hand fight technic (TE = HAND, KARATE = Empty Hand) or used farm tools (nuntchaku, ko, mantis, Boken and BUDDO). This was the born of martial arts schools (These technics were teached in secret school, because of the shogun law).

So... I can understand that you need a gun or a rifle to defend yourself but I see peoples who have dozen of military weapons like M-16 or VULCAN CANNON as terrorists (and soon members of KKK)!
In France too, we have peoples like that, corsican nationalists terrorist (FLNC), often have media conferences in military clothes with Machine Guns in the hands. THESE ARE FASCISTS !

I've been shocked by kind of war weapons you can buy in USA (M16, AK47, UZI...).

You must know that on 14/07/2002, a nationalist militant try to kill the president CHIRAC during the 14th july parade. Fortunatly, he just had a 22mm long-rifle carabine but if France had the same law that in USA, CHIRAC would probably killed and French public opinion wouls probably so disapointed that LEPEN would be elected.
I suspect LEPEN to be behind this attack, but I think the suite of this story should be posted in NWO section...



posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Sorry I couldn't post on saturday, my whole family was sick where I was, couldn't get to a computer.

Anyway, here goes...

I like some of your arguments. Most of you however do not realize why we need guns. They are used to hunt. Some of you do not realize what happens where I live when we have a bad hunting season.

Deer are everywhere. Many people hit them. The cost of car insurance sky-rockets. There are more fatal single car crashes.

Hunting is not the barbaric thing that most of you may think of when you hear the word. It is a good source of food for pretty cheap, a way to keep the populations under control, and also a way to keep insurance down.

Now for you people who live in the cities, hunting is not a necessity. So why not ban guns there?

Think about this; what if we were actually invaded, our government leaders were all taken out, and complete anarchy has taken over. What then do we have to defend against an enemy invasion? If everybody had a gun, there wouldn't be a problem, everybody could take care of themselves.

This is why I believe the founders of our country gave us the right to bear arms. Not to protect us against others in our country(though they could be used for that too), but to protect against total annihilation, so that we would live on to re-establish a government.



posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Gun ownership is a fundamental right in the US constitution, and was put there to ensure that if the government did something or took actions contrary to the will of the people, the people had the means to replace the government.

I would point to communities like Kennesaw Georgia, and even Switzerland (where all adult males and many females are required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle at home, with ammo), where gun ownership is mandatory, and crime is all but nonexistant.

As Massad Ayoob says, an armed society is a polite society.

Q: Where would you feel more comfortable living? In a decent suburb, racially and ethnically mixed, but where all adult members were decent, tolerant, and personally responsible.... and where EVERYONE owned say a Ruger Mini-14, and EVERYONE CARRIED a Ruger GP100 on thier belt at all times?

OR, would you feel more comfortable living in South Central LA?



posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider As Massad Ayoob says, an armed society is a polite society.

Heh! It stands to reason that you wouldn't want to piss off someone who may have quicker reflexes & better aim than you do...And the other person you're talking to may be thinking the very same thing...So of course you're *both* going to be polite...It may literally be a mater of life & death...
A similar thing that I've been taught while going up..."It won't kill you to be polite, will it?"



[Edited on 4-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]


AF1

posted on Mar, 3 2003 @ 11:33 PM
link   
For a good reason to own an automatic weapon I would like to refer to the simpsons where Homer joins the NRA. I believe Lenny suggested it is very effective against today's super animals, such as the Flying-Squirrel.


Seriously though, only the military needs automatic weapons. There isn't a whole lot though that stops one angry guy from buying an illegal gun out of some guys trunk. With all guns being banned, it is not safe to say that violence will cease. If there is a will, there is a way. Personally, I'd feel much safer knowing that I have a gun, than if I didn't.



posted on Mar, 4 2003 @ 06:02 AM
link   
The reason one would need to own an automatic is the constitutional reason - to stand between the citizenry and a government of tyranny and arbitrary rule. That is the reason for the 2nd amendment, not for hunting or personal protection. Both of those topics are covered by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Personally, I sold an automatic shortly after I bought it. I realized I couldn't afford the ammo!



posted on Mar, 4 2003 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I can understand that, TC...Merely practicing on a daily basis with a gun capable of 100 rounds per second could bankrupt anyone short of the Kennedys or Rockefellers; Your ammo-budget could outstrip many 3rd World GNP's...


...However, with sufficient training & practice, you should only need one bullet per trigger-squeeze anyway...



posted on Mar, 4 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
A-men, brother. One shot, one kill, some ammo to use another day, it's Miller Time!

The reason why I purchased the weapon (MAC-11) was because the first "Brady Bill" was coming about, and I didn't want the freaks to tell me I couldn't own an automatic. While I bought it before they could tell me that, my wallet later made it perfectly clear!


While anyone who wants one can own one IAW the constitution, it is really only effective in a squad level unit or above, and most citizens aren't going to be involved in any militia that will work together in such manner if ever the need should arise.

It is good for the economy, both for the manufacturers of weapons as well as ammunition. Definitely only for the wealthy, though, as you deftly pointed out!



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join