First  Prev  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  Next  Last
Post Reply Gun Rights
1373 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ɪ ᴀᴍ ɴᴏᴛ ᴀ ʜᴇʀᴏ
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

pew pew

23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
I think we should define "what works". I mean, granted, I do not expect banning guns to start Armageddon, but I think what "works" varies.
Posted 4/6/17
Used to be anti gun in my liberal days. Now I can't decide what new raifu I want. Wish Trump would get rid of the NFA since its unconstitutional. I believe most states should have their own gun laws as long as they don't violate the 2nd Amendment though
6899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17
I think that more people should have the right to bear arms. It's funny how the average Russian, Englishman or Mexican can't have the right to own a gun like in the USA, Mozambique (where the mighty AK-47 is pictured in their flag), Somalia, Honduras, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Paraguay or even Estonia.
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
Every single member of my family is strapped. Its because we aren't fools and we know that its important to be able to STAND YOUR GROUND. You are far safer around me than most people who don't have a weapon and haven't practiced. I also endorse concealed carry/open carry/castle state laws. Although I like my gun my true protection is the Lord God.
23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17
I think self defense laws may need to be changed. Most people do not support shooting in the back, but I am divided, considering that surprise may be a critical element in self defense. Not sure.

Though what I think people mean is shooting a fleeing thief.

Now, most police officers do have the right, on the basis that they likely know who the suspect is, and what kind of threat they pose, which has to follow guidelines.

Now I think if someone is "obviously" running away from you, such as running from your frontyard, you should not be able to shoot, even if they are making off with property. It seems unethical to prize possessions over a human life, even criminals. A few states that only justify this as a felony, where the thievery depends on the price of the goods stolen, and I think this is bollocks. The person shooting probably does not know, which makes it not factor.

That, and from what I understand of guns and anatomy, when you shoot, you shoot to kill. Limb shots are not as harmless as TV portrays them.
28144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

Lance_Clemings wrote:

I believe there should be a place somewhere in this world where something is legal. That way, if you really want it, at least you can. Not sure how accurate this is, but isn't the United states one of the few places left with legal civilian guns?


Note my opinion on this also extended to other illegal things, such as prostitution, drug use, hell, seagulls, even murder. (though good luck finding anyone at a legal murder location, or a location for that matter.)


The Philippines.
8926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think self defense laws may need to be changed.

Now I think if someone is "obviously" running away from you, such as running from your frontyard, you should not be able to shoot, even if they are making off with property. It seems unethical to prize possessions over a human life, even criminals. A few states that only justify this as a felony, where the thievery depends on the price of the goods stolen, and I think this is bollocks. The person shooting probably does not know, which makes it not factor.


No, they don't need to be changed. What you are basically saying is that, even if they stole my social security card (a person's lifeline pretty much here in the US) to just let them go, and steal one of the most important things a US citizen needs? Or what about a family item passed down? Yeah, no. They don;t need change whatsoever, if you stole something from me after coming onto my property, be prepared to meet one of two 12G shotguns or a .22, and don't expect to leave alive.
One Punch Mod
99301 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 4/6/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Used to be anti gun in my liberal days. Now I can't decide what new raifu I want.


Raifu.

That's cute.

23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/6/17 , edited 4/6/17

MonoDreams wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think self defense laws may need to be changed.

Now I think if someone is "obviously" running away from you, such as running from your frontyard, you should not be able to shoot, even if they are making off with property. It seems unethical to prize possessions over a human life, even criminals. A few states that only justify this as a felony, where the thievery depends on the price of the goods stolen, and I think this is bollocks. The person shooting probably does not know, which makes it not factor.


No, they don't need to be changed. What you are basically saying is that, even if they stole my social security card (a person's lifeline pretty much here in the US) to just let them go, and steal one of the most important things a US citizen needs? Or what about a family item passed down? Yeah, no. They don;t need change whatsoever, if you stole something from me after coming onto my property, be prepared to meet one of two 12G shotguns or a .22, and don't expect to leave alive.


Yeah, I am, only on the circumstance that your life clearly is not in any danger. Most states (Most of said defense laws vary by state) do not allow you to kill for the sole purpose of recovering or protecting property. It is not a reasoning I find to be flawed, whereas your criticism of the laws not needing to be changed go solely against these statutes that are already a law in nearly every US state (Except Texas it seems, maybe Florida). Which is you cannot shoot a fleeing suspect, which I advocate in states that place too much emphasis on self defense as to forgo common sense and apply it to property.

I really do not see why family heirlooms or social security cards should take precedent over a human life. We can assume they are the awfulness, evilest, human beings who deserve it anyway, but that is hardly a fair assumption, and not something for regular citizen to act as executioners. I think the safe assumption in self defense cases is that they mean you physical harm upon entry, but fleeing to the point they are nearly off your outside property, it is hardly a case of self defense.
15989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 4/7/17

Thameatman wrote:
Every single member of my family is strapped. Its because we aren't fools and we know that its important to be able to STAND YOUR GROUND. You are far safer around me than most people who don't have a weapon and haven't practiced. I also endorse concealed carry/open carry/castle state laws. Although I like my gun my true protection is the Lord God.
lol

MonoDreams wrote:
if you stole something from me after coming onto my property, be prepared to meet one of two 12G shotguns or a .22, and don't expect to leave alive.
America...

Neither taking away all guns or bringing in more would in no way help.
oh... yeah
"Shoot first, ask later"
*everyone gets a gun and over half or more don't know how to deal with them right or having control of them*
"later that day a child was shot when finding a pistol laying around"
derp...
21829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/7/17
21410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 4/7/17
Mostly pro-gun, against fully civilian ownership of fully automatics and support universal background checks. Other than that, as long as you aren't a convicted felon for a violent crime I think you should have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary. I think we need to be doing more to crack down on the gun black market and going after those sellers, it would do a lot more than stupid bullet count laws or bans of what are essentially "scary-looking guns."
210 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/17
It's not a question of whether or not people should have guns. Sure i'd love to let everyone have guns, but that also means people who shouldn't have guns get guns. (ex. crazy fuckers). The idea of specific "machine gun/fully auto" gun bans is if said crazy fuck decides to get a machine gun he'll only be able to use a semi auto to kill everyone as opposed to a fuckn m16 and going full john rambo on everyones ass.

Sure guns dont kill people crazy fucks do, but crazy fucks do exist therefore their has to be some sort of regulation. Though it really falls under a tsa "protecting" people at the airport. The idea of protection vs the actual act of protecting. Sure the tsa wouldn't actually do shit during a real terrorist attack, but it gives joe blow the perception that it does. So by having regulations that restrict certain weapons we give the impression of a safer world.

When in reality crazy fucks could just kill people a ton of different ways, e.g. pressure cookers/cars/lawn mowers/swords/ other weapons. It's just the illusion of safety that people are after.
23867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 4/7/17
I am not sure where I went wrong. I do not think it is ethical to kill someone purely for your property, versus cases of self defense. I do not care if it is a heirloom or a social security card. You are essentially saying they are worth more than a human life, and I cannot agree. I find such a thing brutal and selfish.

1673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/28/17
Person should be an adult, have a gun license and have a clean history. I'm pro guns but there do need to be rules for them because there are psychos in the world which also means I think law abiding citizens should have guns for protection.
510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/17 , edited 4/29/17
Alright, I'll be straight I'm pro gun, but I don't agree with the whole system how the NFA ( National Firearms Act) is right now as it is just a wasted tax stamp system that fundamentally just targeted poor people, it wasn't there to stop crime, and has not since its entire creation. It's like saying cause they "banned machine guns" the Bootleggers mobs stop being ultra violent, no they didn't, the Government gave up on Prohibition, which made the violence drop cause of no longer needing to illegally make beer.

Automatic or semi-auto is not going to change anything. So banning it is fundamentally stupid. Argue all you want, but go ahead, take the time to head up to range with rental full autos, tell me how "great" they are when suddenly you are trying to control that. Heck it might save more lives as the recoil alone would end up throwing their accuracy so bad they might hit even one. Just remember your average mass shooter isn't some Seal Team 6 Operator, they are typically some loser who stole the gun or bought it recently, far from "experts" with them.

However I will say some kind of courses, permits, and actual evaluation is necessary for ownership. I've seen enough idiots not know how to maintain their firearms, operate, and laws applicable which is something that needs to get fixed. It's a right yea, but its something you need to at least know more than how to fill in a paper and pay cash.
First  Prev  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.