| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| where is your stand |
| total disarmament |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| strict guns control |
|
53% |
[ 15 ] |
| light guns control |
|
21% |
[ 6 ] |
| free access to guns |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
It's the old discussion over and over again! Do you believe in the escalating eye for an eye principle or not. Treat violence with violence!
He tries to rape/rob you with force, you pull a gun with intension to kill for protection.
Next the bad guy comes with gun too (knowing from experience) and we could have the bloodshed, until we find something even better and deadlier than guns!?????
What's the alternative you say!??? Prevent the crime before it happens? Reduce opportunities for bloodshed (Make guns harder to get, by making them illigal amongs common people) like porno is prohibited for the younger audience. It's no 100% solutions, and there propably never will be any 100% solution. But are we satisfied to live with that some people now and then will be killed in a shoot out, because of firearms, where no deadly outcome otherwise would have been the situation.
Are you satisfied that 2 out of 3 men/women (or better) you shot had really bad attention against you, but the last you didn't know he just wanted to steel your purse. Well he is dead, but it safed my life twice in other situations (You think)!
In Denmark 10-20 years ago we usually used fists to settle arguments, mostly without any permanently means to the looser. Now foreign cultures have brought knives and clubs along on their daily strolls, and used them in fights with many deadly outcomes. Some Danish people followed this recipe and brough along a knife too. Now our statistics every year beats the previous year in killings by knives and clubs.
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
Thu Aug 29, 2002 1:11 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
@Val, I don't want to imply that you (or any other individual gun owner) evil. My argument is that a society (as a whole) is better off without guns, IMO.
IF (and that is a huge if) one could actually disarm all of society (worldwide), then I would agree.
But then, society would be better off without all the automobiles, without television, without computer games - all of these cause problems in one way or another. I am not suggesting they are equivalent but the same argument could apply.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:05 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
I'm still not buying the claim that guns are no different from cars or rocks.
Guns are made to kill or harm. Sure they can be used to other things aswell, like sports. but still they are fundamentally made to take life, be it animal or human.
And yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. BUT people kill people with guns. (and cars, and in some places, rocks). Still cars are not made for killing, rocks are not 'made' at all.
Whether you like it or not, guns are fundamentally different from other objects, everything has it's own basic 'form' or context and you can't just simply take it away by referring to other objects with similar 'uses'.
People sit on cars, but they also sit on chairs. That doesn't mean that cars and chairs have the same form or meaning, they only share some simple qualities.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:41 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
*first gives Val a warm blanket and a cup of cocoa*
There, there...
Now, let me revisit what I said. I said guns are evil. Not gun owners. Guns themselves. One of the main reasons for that is their ability to twist minds of innocent people into feeling powerful and secure.
In your story, what scrared those men off was not the gun. It was your father. A man ready to do anything to protect his family. We all know not to mess with momma bear when her cubs are close by. Why? Because we know that all bets are off. She's willing to go all the way. Most animals don't like those odds, so they back off. That thing in your father's hand could've been a replica. A squirt gun. It would not make a difference to those men. But it would to your father. He would not feel as bold. As strong. As secure.
@goofy Those statistics are so loaded. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because one way may have worked, doesn't mean that it's the only way or more specifically that it's the best way. Even that it's a good way, let alone the best. Mace sprays work just as well against an attacker. As do stun guns. How about if police gave out little distress beepers to women instead of giving them guns? Distress beepers that are linked into their central system and dispatch a closest cruiser the moment there is a sign of trouble? This way you can prevent a crime, as well as catch the would be perpetrator. But no. It's much easier to just hand out bunch of guns and at the end of the year doctor some statistics to show how your gun-handing-out program worked wonders. Personally, I think convicted rapists should have their genitals surgically removed. That should be deterrant enough for many, as well as a sure way that repeat crimes are not possible. But hey, why waste money on a doctor when a gun costs less.
_________________
(@) |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:41 pm |
|
|
ButtOfMalmsey
Village Idiot
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 785
Location: Mississippi |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
@ButtOfMalmsey: And whose fault is all of that? Utah is an example that guns are not the source of conflict.
I agree.
_________________
"It has been a grand journey- well-worth making once."
-Winston Churchill, 1965, on Life
I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode. I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
-Homer Simpson
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Member of The Sixth House=
::Captain of the Black Company:: |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:15 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
I'm still not buying the claim that guns are no different from cars or rocks.
I did not (nor do I think anybody else is) claim there was no difference - in fact, quite the opposite.
quote:
Guns are made to kill or harm. Sure they can be used to other things aswell, like sports. but still they are fundamentally made to take life, be it animal or human.
So? This is a irrelevant issue. Many (if not most) technologically produced things in our modern society are used for many things that were not intended. What IS more relevant is that far more deaths occur due to cars than guns.
quote:
And yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. BUT people kill people with guns. (and cars, and in some places, rocks). Still cars are not made for killing, rocks are not 'made' at all.
Whether you like it or not, guns are fundamentally different from other objects, everything has it's own basic 'form' or context and you can't just simply take it away by referring to other objects with similar 'uses'.
People sit on cars, but they also sit on chairs. That doesn't mean that cars and chairs have the same form or meaning, they only share some simple qualities.
Again - so??? What the intended use of an item is really irrelevant to the argument. Marijuana (like rocks) is a naturally occuring thing - so??? Rocks are not illegal to own or use - Marijuana (in the US) is - there is NO relationship whatsoever in a practical or logical framework.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:17 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Now, let me revisit what I said. I said guns are evil. Not gun owners. Guns themselves.
Oh please tell me you are NOT serious (I saw no smiley). A gun is just an inanimate object - and as such has no innate characteristic of evil (or good). That is so much bovine excrement. The only evil (and it is a disservice to the agrument to even bring up good and evil which are NOT well defined nor agreed upon) that might exist is within the mind of the Human holding the gun.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:25 pm |
|
|
ButtOfMalmsey
Village Idiot
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 785
Location: Mississippi |
Arsenic.
_________________
"It has been a grand journey- well-worth making once."
-Winston Churchill, 1965, on Life
I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode. I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
-Homer Simpson
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Member of The Sixth House=
::Captain of the Black Company:: |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:33 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
The intented use or the "nature" of the item is relevant against your argument that if guns are banned, every object that has the capability to harm should also be banned.
I see no reason why a person needs to own a item intented solely to harm others, other from hunting. And hunting weapons should only be allowed during the hunting season, otherwise they should be kept locked away. Target practice is another thing, but you don't need all the firepower to do that. Airguns etc. could be used as well. Also, the guns for target practice could be held in the firing ranges, in guarded and controlled environment.
Ofcourse my view is altered by the country I live in. In Finland, there is absolutely no need to own a gun for self-protection, since our violence rates are low, atleast incidents leading to death. The only people here who really need guns for protection are members of the organized crime.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:36 pm |
|
|
ButtOfMalmsey
Village Idiot
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 785
Location: Mississippi |
mDrop, I say again, arsenic.
_________________
"It has been a grand journey- well-worth making once."
-Winston Churchill, 1965, on Life
I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode. I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
-Homer Simpson
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Member of The Sixth House=
::Captain of the Black Company:: |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:49 pm |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
...@goofy Those statistics are so loaded. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because one way may have worked, doesn't mean that it's the only way or more specifically that it's the best way. Even that it's a good way, let alone the best.
i agree...there is no absolutely way to solve problems. but we just can't cast aside something abitrarily without much consideration, some of the statistics probably true....
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
...Mace sprays work just as well against an attacker. As do stun guns. How about if police gave out little distress beepers to women instead of giving them guns? Distress beepers that are linked into their central system and dispatch a closest cruiser the moment there is a sign of trouble? This way you can prevent a crime, as well as catch the would be perpetrator. But no. It's much easier to just hand out bunch of guns and at the end of the year doctor some statistics to show how your gun-handing-out program worked wonders.
Yes, it is good idea - especially stun guns. It's strange why this solutions haven't get much attention yet....because other kind of hurdles?....
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Personally, I think convicted rapists should have their genitals surgically removed. That should be deterrant enough for many, as well as a sure way that repeat crimes are not possible. ...
 i think you are joking....
quote:
Originally posted by Michael C
It's the old discussion over and over again! Do you believe in the escalating eye for an eye principle or not. Treat violence with violence!
i think everyone here (at least almost) don't agree with "violence with violence" or "eye for an eye principle." But unfortunately, our world (human) always didn't works that way - even most small child, for example in schools, when someone hit him/her, their would hit back......
_________________
Last edited by Remus on Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:22 pm |
|
|
TribalMan
Conflict Within
Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Posts: 681
Location: Neither Here Nor There |
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
And hunting weapons should only be allowed during the hunting season, otherwise they should be kept locked away. Target practice is another thing, but you don't need all the firepower to do that. Airguns etc. could be used as well. Also, the guns for target practice could be held in the firing ranges, in guarded and controlled environment.
Hmm. That would never work. Most people that target practice like to do so with the gun and ammo that they will use during hunting (or for whatever else). No guns fire exactly the same, and the same could be said for different kinds of ammo. Add a scope to the equation and there is an even greater need to target practice with the exact weapon and ammo you will be using.
I have noticed some interesting arguments and solutions. Now only if we could put them into action.
I have only been shot at once. I did not get hit, and the shooter was a 16 yr old kid with a 12 gauge shotgun. The incident happened outside of a club in the suburbs and was reported. What happened? Basically nothing. The kid was caught and the gun was confiscated until the kids father came and got it out of impoundment the following day. The problem with guns, as with most problems of this nature, is the way the Governmental system handles the situation.
Luckily more people like me are not in high offices. I would do wonders for the population problem, including prison populations. 
_________________
  T®îßã£Måñ
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."
-= Member of The Nonflamers' Guild =- |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:26 pm |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
Some very interesting points of view and arguments.
But no. I'd have to disagree that guns are evil, and not people. Guns are neutral; they're neither good nor evil, surely you know that. People who use guns with evil intentions are evil.
If any of you have had formal military type training with guns/weapons, you were trained not only physically, but mentally (psychologically) to do your duties with your weapons. If you showed signs of not being capable of handling it, you were dropped. Obviously they only need soldiers who can handle their training. Studies have shown that most people cope by rationalising that if they killed, they were only carrying out their duties. In these cases the responsible party would be their CO, the government...their GOD.
A lot of crime or criminal acts are oppotunistic ie, they are not planned beforehand. In these cases the very sight, or knowledge of a victim having a gun will greatly deter them. In Val's example, I'd lean more towards the gun her Dad held having considerable effect.
For all those who feel that ALL guns bar none, are bad; the world would be a far better place if one night, magically all guns just disappeared. Well, don't be surprised if crime and violence actualy INCREASE after the disappearance of guns! It is difficult to relate how good a gun can be, unless you've seen it's good side first hand... of someone close has. Unfortunately, with the media sensationalising the its bad side, that's all we get.
Go volunteer at a rape center... then come back and say having had a gun wouldn't have made a difference. And that's only one example.
But yes. I hate the way criminals can get away by saying, "Oh, accidental!" or, "Oh, self defense!" and they can bacause it only takes one shot to kill. If their victim had thirteen blows (from a blunt object) to the head, it's a little more difficult to plead so.
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:30 pm |
|
|
Ryban
Village Dweller
Joined: 23 Aug 2002
Posts: 19
Location: Belgium, Gent |
quote:
Originally posted by goofy goldfish
although i am supporting light guns control measures, i always willing to listen & keep my mind open. based on this poll so far, it seem most people want strict control of guns and wide degree of different opinions across the issue.
i have seen almost same arguments as Val opinions' on another forum site (also college girl, strongly support free access to guns; she is not you, right?  ), and i think their reasons is reasonable. Also, guns control would effect male & female populations differently - so it's worthy we take this into consideration.
one of the websites = http://www.iwf.org/news/000512b.shtml has this to says:
"You won’t hear that from professional anti-gun groups like Handgun Control, Inc. They are using women and manipulating the facts to get the political outcome they want: abolishing legal gun ownership.
At IWF, we care about facts and believe that women need to know the truth about gun control, and why they should oppose it. For women, by far the safest course of action when confronted by a criminal is to have a gun. The number of rapes in states with non-discretionary concealed handgun laws is 25% lower than in states that restrict or forbid women to carry concealed handguns. Guns are the great equalizer between the sexes.
Here are facts you should know:
. For women, by far the safest course of action [when confronted by a criminal] is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun. (John R. Lott, Jr.)
· Guns also appear to be the great equalizer among the sexes. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. (More Guns Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., p. 20.)
· Orlando, Florida had a long-standing rape problem. Then the police offered a highly publicized gun-training program for women. The result was a 76 percent decrease in rapes. (Washington Times, March 31, 2000.)
. According to Dr. Gary Kleck, about 205,000 women use guns every year to protect themselves against sexual abuse. (Gun Owners Foundation Firearms Fact Sheet, 1999 cited to Kleck and Gertz “Armed Resistance to Crime” at 185.)
· The number of rapes in states with nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws is 25 percent lower than in states that restrict or forbid women to carry concealed handguns. (More Guns Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., p. 46.) "
Your point being?
Strick regulations are not affected by sex at all. Women would have the same chance to own a gun like men. I' m quite certain for example that Val would pass ( the way I see it ).
Criminals: I think former posts explain why stricter regulations won't affect criminal initially, but eventually If civilinas are trained to act more responsible with their guns and all the guns are registered, then it will become harder for criminals to get guns.
Strict regulations don't have to mean that there are less guns, It could (and should) mean that if u have a gun you at least know how to use it and can handle your responsiblity( witch u have as a non-criminal owning a gun)
A few post before I stated some points witch I consider as an example of strickt regulations if those points can be attained just by enforcing current laws, then there are no new laws needed. As said before In this thread It's better to make laws work then to create new laws without enforcing them.
_________________
I don't suffer from insanity,
I enjoy every second of it. |
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:13 pm |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
[quote="Ryban"]
quote:
Originally posted by goofy goldfish
.....A few post before I stated some points witch I consider as an example of strickt regulations if those points can be attained just by enforcing current laws, then there are no new laws needed. As said before In this thread It's better to make laws work then to create new laws without enforcing them.
i think i aslo said that in the first post in this thread, eh? i can see many problems exist in enforcing current available laws, not to mention involvement of politicians, then the election things.....
quote:
Originally posted by Ryban
Your point being?
there is gender issues involved although not very apparent...you could search internet to find out. We should look at the issue at our hands from different perspectives to get a clear or more complete picture....
_________________
|
|
Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
