No.614
What do the ladies and gentlemen of 8lounge think of civilians possessing firearms? Are you for or against it, and why?
I personally believe that responsible citizens should be allowed to possess firearms for the purposes of sport, self defense, and as a means of backing up the system of checks and balances that keep the government under control.
No.618
I think things shouldn't be banned "because it could be dangerous."
there's already laws against murder.
As the americans say, freedom isn't free. Sometimes people get hurt, that is a part of living in a country with liberty.
When trenchcoat mcgunman shoots up a school, we should be asking "why" instead of "how".
t. not american
No.619
>>618This. No one goes on shootings or murders because they had access to a weapon and figured "why not," they did it because they wanted to. If you're desire to kill is strong enough, you'll find a way to obtain a gun illegally, laws against it won't do much. I think stricter gun laws would just create more trouble for civilians that aren't likely to murder, and not to much to stop those that are.
No.622
Living in a country where firearms are banned, I can say 1. I'm less afraid of psychos shooting up schools, but 2. I'm more afraid of thugs shooting me at night and leaving my body in an alley.
>people still get shot in countries with bans on firearms
Well, except for Japan. make love toing Japan.
No.626
>>618>>619Well put, I couldn't agree more. This highlights the two major issues with the anti-gun argument- They ignore the fact that it is mental illness that causes such acts to be committed, and the fact that laws against guns are only followed by those who obey the law in the first place.
And as a counterpoint to the "larger magazines= larger killing potential" argument, the deadliest attack on a school in the US, claiming the lives of 44 people, was performed without shooting a single person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster No.634
>>614I never really understood this debate to be perfectly honest with you. Because really, at the bottom of it all (if you argue against the idea) is an argument for a federal monopoly on personal safety; with special emphasis on monopoly. To put that in another way, the argument against personal firearms necessarily entails the idea that you don't have the right to defend yourself with equal or greater force against a potential perpetrator.
Logically that makes no rational sense at all. It's a bit like saying that only the fire department has the legal authority to use a hose to put burning house out; or only an authorized technician can use a jack to replace your flat tire, etc. etc., you get the point.
And before one contends that the idea is the all out prohibition of firearms in general, well, might I simply refer one to the war on drugs; or to the ever growing 3D printing technology that allows one to simply make their own firearm, etc. etc.. In other words, pandoras box has opened on firearms, and it can't be closed no matter how idealist your approach or argument may be. It's absolutely an absurd argument….
And that's all I have to say about that.
No.641
>>634Thanks for your input, I hadn't ever really looked at it that way.
No.656
>>634I agree wholeheartedly with this method of looking at it, and would like to add to it.
It all comes down to the gun. If you are pro gun control, you aren't really anti-gun. You are for the use of the gun to prohibit the gun for others, namely others without a shiny badge. When you pass any law, you are enforcing it at gunpoint.
This is what people don't seem to understand about democracy. Their votes, opinions, have real world consequences. They advocate violence in response to peaceful behavior. Eric Garner is dead in part because of the sin taxes on tobacco in New York. The liberals there don't understand the consequences of passing a tax, and making the crime of selling something without giving the state its cut a felony.
Gun control advocates are similarly implicit in the injury/death/imprisonment of otherwise peaceful individuals for doing something as trivial as chopping a couple inches off of a barrel. And who comes to enforce these laws? Men with guns.
And those backwards idiots who want to prohibit carry: what are they thinking? You're only prohibiting people who are inclined to follow the law from carrying. I'm a huge proponent of open carry as a deterrent, but we can't even do that where it's allowed because these imbeciles will call the police, who will probably end up shooting us.
I got a bit farther off topic than I wanted to, but the point is that gun control is violence enforced by guns. And if that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
No.664
I believe whole-hearted that a man, woman, and their families should be able to defend themselves. At the same time though, I believe that the gun game has significantly changed. Assault rifles haven't been proven to defend a home better than a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, and the idea of keeping them for when we need to take down the government is ridiculous in my opinion, because I think A.) Most of these people wouldn't do it and B.) We'd probably have half the military defecting and taking their hardware and weaponry with them for whatever rebel cause is going down. It really angers me when I go on /k/ to talk guns and see everyone pull a nice, strong, clean front for why guns should be allowed and kept, but in private discussion they just whine because it's literally that they can't have their favorite toys to play with, and that's it. In that regard, it had seriously made me question the maturity of gun rights advocates in their fight to keep the most dangerous of firearms, and really had given me the idea that a bunch of their opinions are infantile.
I don't think rebanning assault rifles would be a terrible thing, because I think their initial worries is that their hobby/object of affection will be restricted, not that they suddenly can't defend themselves. That's bullpoppycock, and the fact that they're willing to endanger their nation for the sake of "fun" is revolting and extremely disrespectful. make love to the NRA, they fight for gun rights for profit under the guise of protecting our freedoms.
No.686
>>614>>618>>619>>622>>626>>634>>641>>656>>664when i saw that you forgot to take your name off your posts, and how elaborate you samegentged this thread, it kind of just made me feel bad for you.
No.688
No.689
No.690
No.695
>>686Que? You realize Mr(s). Mr(s). Anonymous is the default, right?
No.697
>>686You got me, Mr(s). Anon!
No.698
I am usually against civilians possessing firearms. I am Canadian and the current legislation works very well, people aren't afraid of each others like in the United States, police officers have a more relaxed attitude. And most importantly criminality is very low.
>But Mr(s) Mr(s). Anon, it's because of negros!
It is true that there are many social problems in the United States (most commonly referred to as "negros" on this site) that contribute to the high criminality but even then a lot of crimes involving firearms wouldn't happen if they weren't so easy to obtain. We do have a black market and black people in Canada, but we still have much less violent crimes.
However I agree with Americans when they say that they need firearms to protect themselves against the government. The United States seem to be slowly becoming a police state, I fear the the Internet might get heavily censored soon. That would only be the beginning. I don't buy into conspiracy theories but if nothing changes I can see an armed insurrection happening within the next decade. Before trying to reduce criminality by banning firearms the Americans will need a government they can trust.
No.700
>>698Okay, why are you against people owning firearms? What rational argument that doesn't treat people like children or criminals could one possibly have?
In addition to that, people hunt, trap shoot, and all around hobby shoot, collect, etc., etc.. What business is it of the government if folks want to do these things?
No.705
>>698I would like to counter your disinfo with the following:
-Urban crime in Canada is not a huge proportional step away from the stats of average American cities
-No one claims it is a racially aligned issue, that is a pretty basic strawman
-I believe your use of the word "negro" is trolling (0/10)
-Americans aren't afraid of each other; even then, Canadians are being described as having no caution in your words, which is why Cancucks never lock their doors
-Canadian gun legislation is impotent and has done nothing to restrict gun access for criminals
-Canada is full of reactionary conservatives and separatists
So there you have it. I disagree. If you wish, I'll provide the research to back up my claims.
No.707
>>614I'm completely for it since it's actually fun to go over to the shooting range and shoot a few rounds before leaving. Therefore, I don't think it should be banned. Plus, if a man is coming at you with a knife, wouldn't you rather have a gun on you? I remember seeing a webm from liveleak (I know, a memory isn't fact but take my word) that was of a man walking into a those 7/11 stores or whatever it was and shooting people. Luckily, the cashier had a gun on him and he grabbed it, probably got shot a few times, but finally killed (or something) the guy who was trying to shoot it up.
>b-b-but if guns were outlawed, that wouldn't have even happened in the first placeAnd if he had rather came in with a blunt stick, would that have been any better?
No.713
>>614a weapon is a tool.
Any tool of even mild usefulness can be abused for destructive purpose, but this does not mean we ban, for example, kitchen knives, tire irons, or screwdrivers.
Anyone advocating the ban of tools is indirectly indicating they don't believe their fellow citizen capable of adult decisions and the consequences thereof.
This is not minority report or psycho-pass: pre-crime is an orwellian concept.
No.736
>>614No lawful citizen should be prevented from owning the means of defending himself
No.737
>>700I'm not the poster you replied to but I'm also a Canadian in favor of some gun control. I believe people should have access to guns and should be able to defend themselves. I myself own 5 rifles for hunting. But I do like our system of gun safety and licensing. A gun is a dangerous thing and with any dangerous thing you should be properly trained in handling and operating it safely so you have less cases of people accidentally shooting themselves or others due to ignorance.
No.741
>>737clearly you have the faintest make love toing idea about law & order in this country, much less the system of regulation and legislation even YOU are under personally… wait nah you're not. you're a typical recklessly dumbpoppycock canadian.
you are literally more monitored than a convicted pedofile in canada, being a gun owner. criminal records check every single day. you also give up any and all rights to privacy you once had, BUT ON THE UPSIDE THIS IS CANADA, YOU NEVER HAD SUCH A THING… just in some bullpoppycock writing that doesn't have any judicial weight.
God cursed me being born in this make love toing vacuum of sense that is this country.
No.743
>>736but every citizen pretty much is, unless you're born in the US or like less than 5 other countries in the world. here in the True North Strong and Free, you have no right to self defense or defense of your property. and the using of a firearm in any sort of defensive situation is utterly out of the question. minimum a few years fed time for thinking that would fly.
No.744
>>741I never said that, I just said I like the fact that you need to be trained to use a gun before you can use one. I didn't mean to imply anything else. I agree you otherwise
No.775
I'm all for own guns. Hell, my dad owns like 8. Once I eventually get a permit, I'll see about getting the .38 special and SKS under my name since they're all but that right now. But yeah, about every weekend or so my dad and I would go out to the firing range and shoot off a bunch of rounds for fun. Haven't gone for a while though, because the range we usually go to had a fire. Chance for going next weekend though. We've had issues with that .38 though when my dad was making his first batches of ammo. First shot was a dud, but it seemed like it had fired. Turned out it didn't make it out the barrel. Second shot hit the first and that split opened the barrel. Nothing else bad happened though. After we eventually got the barrel replaced we went off to try again with a new batch a few months later. Same story. We're both pretty much in agreement to sell it off and get a .44 instead.
No.779
>>686It was all an elaborate ruse.
No.782
As a romanian, all I can say on the subject is that here, it's really hard to get your hands on a gun legally (and by black market). We rarely have shootings here, and police never threaten to shoot you, because they rarely carry guns, thus no chance of police misjudgement (or "brutality) that ends up with guns going pop pop. Policemen here are pretty much trained to cooperate with people more, without having a hand on their holster the whole time.
But then, we have really poppycockty laws when it comes to self defense, so bringing guns to the current system wouldn't work anyway without some major changes. To give you something to tell your friends when you're bored: here, if a burglar (gypsy most probably) breaks into your house and you shoot him while he's trying to attack you, there's about 80-90% chances you'll go to jail for many years for it. The law says something about equal fights; if he's got his fists and you slice him with your glorious katana decoration, you'll suffer consequences. Smart law, right? And this is without mentioning the HUGE part of the system that is rotten and corrupt.
No.843
>>782>HUGE part of the system that is rotten and corrupt.Do you think your laws and government, assuming you don't like them, will ever change? If so, how?
No.888
>>843I cant speak for romanians, but i think my answer may partly serve for them as well
the state of affairs will change in the same way in which everything changes; someone will change it
from my perspective, in the U.S. the most effective way at this point would be through a coup d'etat.
there is no point in trying to change a compromised form of government. anyone loyal to the constitution(anyone under oath) is a betrayer if they are not working to restore it & protect it.
No.2634
>>888An American coup d'tetat would actually be legal. The American citizens do have the right to forcefully get rid of their government.
No.2635
>>888Trips speak the truth. Still, at this point, who has the man power or fire power to overthrow the U.S. government. It seems wholly unfeasible.
No.4049
No.4053
>>614I believe all weaponry of all kinds should be legal to possess. If you believe in weaponry being taken away from citizens, or being kept away from citizens, then you believe in an armed government that would do so by force. If you believe in an armed government, then you believe in arming the people who control that government (elites, whether they are politicians, corporations, or both) so they can go against the will of the people without resistance. This means that you accept that when they do things that are best for themselves but not for you, they should have what they want, because they know what's best and you don't.
I don't believe people in power should be able to fuck me over to further their own genes. Anyone who does believe this is a literal cuck who wants someone else's genes to be pushed further than their own. Fighting for my right to weaponry is fighting for my genes to be better passed on.
No.4054
>>686>buttmad authoritarian cuckAre you fucking retarded? Flags, negro. Flags
No.4057
>>686go back to disneychan liberal, adults are talking.
No.4259
>>664
here is where i disagree with you. Assault rifles aren't meant to defend against home invasion. An assault rifle levels the playing field between citizen and government. Now i dont think we should let citizens own tanks or RPGs but when your population can only get 1 shot off at a time while you are getting off 10-15 during that, you essentially have them by the balls. Why fight back when you cant win? Citizens have alot to loose when fighting their governments that the governments dont.
No.4262
I used to be a huge pro-gun zealot, but I've since become neutral on the matter. I see a heavy interest in firearm ownership as indicative of societal decay.
No.4266
I'll say the same thing I said in the other gun control thread around here: I am, without a doubt, pro-gun. I do not believe firearms should themselves be throttled, or otherwise controlled.
That said? We need to really revise our current gun purchase control. I really enjoy shooting as a sport and hobby. Nothing feels quite as good as introducing a box of old crap to a shotgun. I own handguns, rifles,shotguns, machine pistols. They're fun and interesting to collect.
There is no excuse for me owning a gun. I am depressive. I have a number of cluster B personality disorders, and I'm prone to fits and fantasy of violence, I'm sociopathic. I check every single box on the "future spree killer" checklist. So why, exactly, am I able to own so much firepower? Because I lied on a piece of paper.
That shit's inexcusable.
Guns don't kill people, crazy fucktards like myself kill people.