Would We Be Safer If We Banned Guns and Legalized Melee Weapons? - Page 4 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-20-12, 11:04 AM
Member
 
Noise Marine's Avatar
Noise Marine's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 29 Palms, California
Posts: 41
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Werewolf_Arngeirr View Post
so in other words, you feel that you could thrust a knife into someone just as easily as you could pull the trigger? people may die just as easily to swords and knives as they do blades, but the wielders of said weapons find it harder to end anothers life when you have to feel the others life physically drain out of their bodies thanks to your weapon, its harder for the killer to use, not for the action on the killed.

lets use recent news to prove my point shall we?

killer enters a kindergarten class room with a gun, he kills 20+ children because neither they, nor any of the teachers could really stop said killer with a gun, he can easily enter a class room, kill the teacher, then continue with his rampage.

now take the same scenario with a knife: he cant instantly kill the teachers by surprise without charging them from the door, the teacher has a slim chance to be able to notice the opponent with a knife and has a chance to prevent his assault by struggling with him when he first enters, which can be next to impossible with a gun. Add to this, the fact that if said killer had a specific person they wished to kill, I dont think that they would be able to kill so many in such a short time with only a knife, and many factors could have saved many children that day, if only it was a bladed weapon, not a ranged bullet weapon.

people are going to die, theres nothing we can do about it, we can help control how, and who dies though easier when people have to see the whites of their victims eyes, through which can shake alot of resolve when killing someone, at the same time, can reduce death by the pure fact of "running way can save your life"
Why wouldn't he just get his hands on a gun, then? Are we talking complete global disarmament? I suppose I understand your point. However, we've had plenty of death and destruction when the only thing we had to kill people with were swords. It's just a different weapon of a different age, a psycho is going to be a psycho. You treat the sickness, not the symptom.

Of course it would be harder to kill someone with a knife and now you're trying to argue two different points. What it boils down to is this, when you have such a massive population these things happen. There's no one to blame but the killer and those who brought him up to be such a reprehensible human being. Far more people get killed by the background violence than get killed in these massacres and no one pays any attention to them.
Noise Marine is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-20-12, 12:27 PM
Senior Member
 
maddermax's Avatar
maddermax's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,976
Reputation: 8
Default

On the same day as the Newtown tragedy, a man stabbed 23 kids over in China. Now while that shows that psychos will be psychos with or without guns, the difference? Not one kid died. Easy access to highly destructive weapons gives rise to greater tragedies.

This like explosives and poison gas can also be used to kill people, but the fewer people that have access to these things, the fewer psychos can use them. Rapid firing guns are one of the easiest things that laymen have access to for perpetrating massacres, and while they could create pipe bombs, even that takes a certain amount of effort, planning and skill that makes it less likely to be used as an outlet for a crazy person. You can't always stop the lone crazy person, but you can make it difficult for them to get a high body count.

PubHammer Brisbane
It's all in the name.

Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at our friendly club in a pub, Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.

Update:From the 25th of May 2014 we'll be Meeting at The Junction pub in Annerley, opposite Ace Comics and Games Still playing 40k, Warmachine and board games of all sorts!

Last edited by maddermax; 12-20-12 at 12:29 PM.
maddermax is offline  
post #33 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-20-12, 01:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Durant's Avatar
Durant's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North East
Posts: 307
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
On the same day as the Newtown tragedy, a man stabbed 23 kids over in China. Now while that shows that psychos will be psychos with or without guns, the difference? Not one kid died. Easy access to highly destructive weapons gives rise to greater tragedies.

"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel
Durant is offline  
post #34 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-20-12, 02:06 PM
So be it.
 
JAMOB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Auir
Posts: 1,901
Reputation: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie_Oz View Post
Guns give power to the wrong people. Take them away and they lose their power, easy as that.
But how can we reliably take them away from said people? For example terrorist/extremist leaders in other countries - they will still get guns. Criminals in the US - it's called the black market. If someone really wants to buy a gun no law will stop him/her.
Im not saying that gun laws shouldn't be tightened, because not to do so would be irresponsible. However, we cannot just assume that they will work, because they probably won't.

We have a legal right given in the constitution to bear arms - that cannot be taken away lightly. However, what "arms" we can bear should definitely be restricted in some way.

Knives are fun.

That is all.

Quote:
If you go down to the woods today, be wary
JAMOB is offline  
post #35 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-20-12, 10:38 PM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMOB View Post
But how can we reliably take them away from said people? For example terrorist/extremist leaders in other countries - they will still get guns. Criminals in the US - it's called the black market. If someone really wants to buy a gun no law will stop him/her.
Im not saying that gun laws shouldn't be tightened, because not to do so would be irresponsible. However, we cannot just assume that they will work, because they probably won't.
By banning all such weapons to those who do not have a valid reason to have one. The "only criminals will have guns" cry is just silly. If only criminals have gins then those are the only people the police have to worry about.

It worked in Australia, it worked in Bogainville I'd be willing to bet the USA is the equal of those two countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMOB View Post
We have a legal right given in the constitution to bear arms - that cannot be taken away lightly. However, what "arms" we can bear should definitely be restricted in some way.
You have the right to a citizen militia, a well regulated one at that. How that became construed to mean everyone can carry a gun is beyond me.

Last edited by Magpie_Oz; 12-20-12 at 10:40 PM.
Magpie_Oz is offline  
post #36 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-20-12, 11:30 PM
Senior Member
 
cheeto's Avatar
cheeto's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kapaa, Hi
Posts: 431
Reputation: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie_Oz View Post

You have the right to a citizen militia, a well regulated one at that. How that became construed to mean everyone can carry a gun is beyond me.
Because "well regulated" was a term used to describe something finely tuned. A fine tuned engine would be called a well regulated engine back in the day. It's curiously simple to see where the right to bear arms for the citizen comes from. It's spelled out clear as black and white.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia was brought together from the people, most who provided their own weapons. See how that works? I'm sure that if there was a ban on guns in the US it would work a lot better than the gun ban in Mexico where tens of thousands of people are killed in the drug war every year, much better than prohibition of alcohol and the ban on drugs. I don't even do drugs but even I know where to get them. As long as there are manufacturers of weapons, there will be sales of weapons.

The big problem with the idea of the gun ban is that the criminals who already deal in black markets will be the ones owning most of the guns. People who are against the sale of guns are really just against the legal sale of guns to law abiding citizens. Why anyone is interested in making the law abiding defenseless against criminals is pretty mind boggling.

Where I live, the biggest threat people have to deal with is domestic violence and sexual assault. My wife is drop dead gorgeous, and as a result gets noticed by all kinds of people, including the dangerous kind. She carries a weapon just in case she ever gets attacked. I'm sure rapists would also like to see her weapons taken away. It sucks for rapists to have to take a chance against a person who is capable and equipped to defend herself. What you have against women... I don't know but it's a little disturbing.
cheeto is offline  
post #37 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-21-12, 02:24 AM
Feed
 
Serpion5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Space
Posts: 10,976
Reputation: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeto View Post
Why anyone is interested in making the law abiding defenseless against criminals is pretty mind boggling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeto View Post
What you have against women... I don't know but it's a little disturbing.
Well this is a complete and utter twisting of what was actually said by others, and it sadly rendered everything else you said moot. I don't think you quite understand what the conversation is actually about.


Nonsense is our Salvation

Serpion5 is offline  
post #38 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-21-12, 02:54 AM
Banned
Magpie_Oz's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not every shadow, but any shadow
Posts: 7,889
Reputation: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeto View Post
Because "well regulated" was a term used to describe something finely tuned. A fine tuned engine would be called a well regulated engine back in the day. It's curiously simple to see where the right to bear arms for the citizen comes from. It's spelled out clear as black and white.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The militia was brought together from the people, most who provided their own weapons. See how that works?
So we use look at the bit that says "right of the people to bear arms" rather than "well regulated Milita" and "necessary to the security of a free state"

Good plan !

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeto View Post
I'm sure that if there was a ban on guns in the US it would work a lot better than the gun ban in Mexico where tens of thousands of people are killed in the drug war every year, much better than prohibition of alcohol and the ban on drugs. I don't even do drugs but even I know where to get them. As long as there are manufacturers of weapons, there will be sales of weapons.
A drug war which is perpetuated by the availability of weapons from America and the market demand for the drugs in the US. Remove one or both and the problem goes away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeto View Post
The big problem with the idea of the gun ban is that the criminals who already deal in black markets will be the ones owning most of the guns. People who are against the sale of guns are really just against the legal sale of guns to law abiding citizens. Why anyone is interested in making the law abiding defenseless against criminals is pretty mind boggling.
The law abiding are protected by that law. If you remove the market there won't be a black market if people don't want to buy guns no one will want to sell them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeto View Post
Where I live, the biggest threat people have to deal with is domestic violence and sexual assault. My wife is drop dead gorgeous, and as a result gets noticed by all kinds of people, including the dangerous kind. She carries a weapon just in case she ever gets attacked. I'm sure rapists would also like to see her weapons taken away. It sucks for rapists to have to take a chance against a person who is capable and equipped to defend herself. What you have against women... I don't know but it's a little disturbing.
My wife and children go about their daily business with out a care in the world. Neither of them is packin' heat.

What's disturbing is that you think your wife carrying a gun is a good thing.
Magpie_Oz is offline  
post #39 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-21-12, 07:34 AM
Grand Lord Munchkin
 
gen.ahab's Avatar
gen.ahab's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ivins, Utah, USA
Posts: 7,044
Reputation: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie_Oz View Post
You have the right to a citizen militia, a well regulated one at that. How that became construed to mean everyone can carry a gun is beyond me.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Amend II, U.S. Constitution)

It states that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people is used throughout the documents and it refers to the general population of the United States. It does not say "only members of a designated militia corp may be permitted to own firearms," it says that the people have the right to own firearms. The militia bit at the beginning is a justification for the right given to the people. Essentially it is saying that if shit were to hit the proverbial fan, and we actually needed a militia, the population should have the right to own arms so that one could be quickly assembled. Whether or not a militia is actually necessary is a different argument, but it does clearly state that the general population has the right to own arms.

The Website kept telling me that my profile was only 80% complete without creating a signature. Ain't no website going to tell me I was a lazy shit, no sir.

Last edited by gen.ahab; 12-21-12 at 07:38 AM.
gen.ahab is offline  
post #40 of 65 (permalink) Old 12-21-12, 07:42 AM
ZOMGZOR CUSTOM USER TITLE
 
scscofield's Avatar
scscofield's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY
Posts: 6,195
Reputation: 56
Default

It does not say they have the right to high output, high capacity firearms though. Hence my feelings that auto/semi auto be banned or highly regulated.

http://i.imgur.com/aPfHUHy.gif?1




scscofield is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome