• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuff"

Attaman

"Welcome to FurAffinity Forums, gentlemen."
Since people seem obsessed to keep bringing up Firearms, Second Amendment, and so-on in threads about shootings (within the United States or otherwise), I feel like it'd do victims, interested forum-goers, and moderators a world of good punting all such discussion into a thread specifically for the topic. Allow people looking for news on a School Shooting to find news on the School Shooting, for example, instead of have to sift through five pages of banter.
 

Attaman

"Welcome to FurAffinity Forums, gentlemen."
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Now, for my personal opinion? First off, the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution has long since ceased to have any value or purpose.

Before someone jumps on my back about how I want to take away everyone's guns and leave only criminals / the military with such: No. This is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the Amendment, which was based on the idea of having a well-regulated militia who could take up arms in the case of Government abuse, invasion, or so-on has ceased to be practical or applied in any reasonable way, shape, or form. Do people want to hear what an accurate image of a properly respected Second Amendment is? You ready? The National Guard. Not the NRA, not independent firearm owners, the National Guard.

You want to know why? First off, it is a well regulated militia / group of firearm owners. While the standards are less severe than for certain armed branches, you generally must be this sane to be eligible to join and show a continued absence of insanity / irresponsibility to remain within. Versus, say, being able to acquire a free firearm for taking part in [x] promotional business offer and then keeping said firearm until you commit some serious crime.

Second on the Amendment issue, private firearm owners are going to mean jack shit in a Red Dawn-style scenario. Congrats, you have a nine millimeter pistol and a hunting rifle. You know what them invading Norks have? Tanks. And aircraft. Oh yes, having your firearms will be nice for if you try to slip off into the wilderness, or if you take up the very profitable (and, likely, brief) living of a guerilla fighter. But when it comes to repelling them? Have fun. Same goes for if the United States Government for some reason decides "Paul Ryan is the first Life President", as in the end any military action of importance is going to come down to a military branch, either fighting amongst others or dealing with a non-military branch (most probably in a fashion that's either "Military refrains from gunning down civilians" or "Military guns down civilians").

The Second Amendment being cited as a "Constitutional Right" for everyone to own whatever firearms they desire is inane, as it basically ignores the entire purpose of the Amendment to squawk "Something something firearm something something people".

Now, to reinforce that I don't think firearms shouldn't be military-only, private ownership is not wrong or evil. If you can show yourself, routinely, to be a responsible firearm owner, and in a suitable environment for owning a firearm, there is no particular reason to deny someone such a privilege any more than there is to deny ownership of a sword, bow, car, plane, etcetera. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that within the United States the regulations on firearms and firearm ownership greatly need a reform from where they stand now.

And to now briefly address something from the thread that sparked this: Aiming to "put a bullet into that sick fucks brain" is an irresponsible use of a firearm. Why? Well, mostly because this quote is in relation to self defense, and the point of such is to protect yourself and those around you until proper authorities can arrive. If you accidentally hit the skull, or it's the only way to keep yourself safe, that's one thing. But more often than not? If you have the time to properly aim at someone's head and shoot them there, you can probably aim for their arms or legs at the same time. Or, hell, even center-mass, which is significantly more likely to not kill the home-invader.

Note again that I'm not trying to say "Oh man those poor robbers u ebil firearm owners". I'm saying that if your immediate thought with self-defense is "shoot that fucker in the head", put away your firearm and get a psychiatric evaluation to make sure you're fit to own it. Killing someone, self-defense or not, is a very big action, as well as very final.
 

Attaman

"Welcome to FurAffinity Forums, gentlemen."
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Since another argument seems to have popped up in the thread, "Well if responsible citizens have trouble getting firearms, how will they defend themselves from criminals?" You know how I respond to that? "You're right, that is an issue. Shame that you cannot trust the average citizen to be responsible."

Evidence A: The Giffords shorting in Arizona. Several people at that rally were practicing concealed carry. You know what happened then? The only concealed carry people who were of note were ones that were goddamn saints for having not drawn their firearms, as it turned out that a significant number of them were aiming at the wrong people.

Evidence B: The theatre shooting in Aurora. Many people cried "Oh ehm gee, if only concealed carry were more prevalent everyone would have been fine." People who had time to read the articles and come to what one would hope is a reasonable conclusion. The problem? The gunman was in body armor. In a dark theatre. That was crowded. Oh, and he threw smoke grenades. Please, please explain to me how this is responsible concealed carry?

It is very true that concealed carry can work effectively, as we even have a case in the US of someone sniping a gunman with their own private firearm while police had them pinned. But you know what? Not every situation can be made better by increasing the number of firearms involved. This is something that has so many of the critics stumped: They aren't asking for firearms to be removed from responsible private owners' property and ownership, merely that regulation be increased so as to remove them from irresponsible owners' hands and keep them out of such. Though for some reason the moment regulation is brought up people hoot-and-hollar like howler monkeys about the UN, stripping constitutional rights, "Criminals rule the street", etcetera.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Off-the-rails debates are a crime of passion. You can't force them.
 

FenrirUlv

Probably stoned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

You could have summed all that up with keep them out of the crazies hands.

I agree with you, but I have another issue with this debate that I think needs clarification and badly (though you did a good job of this part of the issue).
Back then we also had muzzle loaders, one shot weapons that take a minute or so to reload, you arent going to go and commit mass murder with one highly inaccurate round a minute (IF that). Now we have automatic firearms with high capacity magazines. There is absolutley no need for anyone to have either of these. Currently automatic firing rates are illegal but we have no regulation on magazine size. I can easily go to my local gun shop but an AK and find a 100 round capacity magazine somewhere online without a problem. Even handguns have extended magazines you can buy that can increase your ammunition capacity greatly. I have no qualms of hunting rifles or other bolt action/semi automatic firearms with a low capacity, at this point its similar to where knives are (though still FAR more deadly), you can kill someone but you most likely arent going on a rampage with it.
 

Kosdu

Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

This thread, it has been thought out well.




It makes no sense, giving guns to people without an extensive background check and a psychological evaluation.


When I'm old enough, I can go get my liscence. Then buy as many semi-autos as I want to turn full auto, or alternatively go to the black market or out on the streets and buy myself high capacity automatics.



Guns don't have the intention of killing, people do. So why do we give them out like candy?




If I am mugged, I take martial arts. I will likely be okay.


But how many actually defend themselves? And what off richoshets and accidental deaths?
 

Schwimmwagen

Well-Known Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

And what off richoshets and accidental deaths?

You know, to prevent accidental deaths and injuries, it wouldn't be a bad idea if weapon safety, responsibility, control, and usage were things that would be absolutely mandatory teaching topics before anyone could get their hands on a gun of their own.

Kinda like a driving license. But shooty.
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Since people seem obsessed to keep bringing up Firearms, Second Amendment, and so-on in threads about shootings (within the United States or otherwise), I feel like it'd do victims, interested forum-goers, and moderators a world of good punting all such discussion into a thread specifically for the topic. Allow people looking for news on a School Shooting to find news on the School Shooting, for example, instead of have to sift through five pages of banter.

What else did you expect in a thread about shooting? :v

But how many actually defend themselves? And what off richoshets and accidental deaths?

People die from accidents everyday. All sorts of different accidents. So imo, this means moot.
 
Last edited:

Attaman

"Welcome to FurAffinity Forums, gentlemen."
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

What else did you expect in a thread about shooting? :v
Preferably frequent updates to the news, discussion of the shooter / news coverage, etcetera. Not, uh, a spat on constitutional rights.
 

Validuz

The Not-so-typical Swede.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Yeah. The argument that American citizens got weapons in their homes to repell an invading army is laughable. It's not like they could do anything against an armored vehicle anyhow. Sure, it'd going to help but in the larger view of things it wouldnt help much. And instead of the invading army making its say through the cities. They'd level them before aproaching if they knew how much of a resistance they'd get. Modern artillery and tanks could do it from kilometers away.

I would find it comforting to know i had a handgun at home incase of a burgular if i lived in the US that is. But letting pretty much anyone buy a .50' sniper rifle. A fully automatic machinegun and that kind of stuff for 'HOME DEFENCE' is.. Odd to say the least. Theyre expensive toys for the shooting range.

---

About school/public shootings though. I'm not sure on how to answer that. After the virginia-tech shooting a few years ago i remember reading about a school that was thinking about letting any student there carry a handgun. My mind instantly flashed to a scenario where a single student, pissed cuz he's being bullied. Fire a couple of shots in the mess-hall.(Is that what it's called? The food-place at schools.) And 20 students pull out their guns. Since everyone is holding a gun, scared, pointing at eachother. How many do you think will stand down from that mexican-standoff? Bullets will start flying and half the room would be gunned down.
What about arming the teachers? A 'responsible' adult in each classroom? Might work. But i'd be rather irked by the thought that my teacher had a handgun. Not to mention ALOT of teachers wouldnt be able to fire it, even in self defence(speaking from my own experience on what kind of teachers i've had.)
It's a shame that these things happend. But anything short of having a super x-ray metaldetector that scans everyone as they enter the peremices(sp?) or a couple of on-duty cops there at all times. (Both wich would cost alot of money!) there's little to be done.

Norway 2011.
As you might know. Both Norway and Sweden are rather strict when it comes to gunlaws. but that didnt stop 'Breivik' as he's commonly known here. To gun down 69ppl at a summercamp and blow up a bomb outside the government building. A total killcount of 77. All in a country with very strict guncontrol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Edit: I just have to add this Wikipedia antry.. THIS. Is why we can't have nice things. "Breivik's usage of shooter video games has sparked debate about further censorship in violent video games." -_-; Really? REALLY?! It's utter fucking bullshit. If videogames had any effect on me in that way, i'd halved the Scandinavian population by now.
 
Last edited:

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Right. Have fun with that :roll:

Yeah, I can see someone trying to use martial arts to fend off a gunman, somehow I don't think the person performing martial arts will be successful. :v
 

FenrirUlv

Probably stoned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Yeah. The argument that American citizens got weapons in their homes to repell an invading army is laughable. It's not like they could do anything against an armored vehicle anyhow. Sure, it'd going to help but in the larger view of things it wouldnt help much. And instead of the invading army making its say through the cities. They'd level them before aproaching if they knew how much of a resistance they'd get. Modern artillery and tanks could do it from kilometers away.

I would find it comforting to know i had a handgun at home incase of a burgular if i lived in the US that is. But letting pretty much anyone buy a .50' sniper rifle. A fully automatic machinegun and that kind of stuff for 'HOME DEFENCE' is.. Odd to say the least. Theyre expensive toys for the shooting range.

---

About school/public shootings though. I'm not sure on how to answer that. After the virginia-tech shooting a few years ago i remember reading about a school that was thinking about letting any student there carry a handgun. My mind instantly flashed to a scenario where a single student, pissed cuz he's being bullied. Fire a couple of shots in the mess-hall.(Is that what it's called? The food-place at schools.) And 20 students pull out their guns. Since everyone is holding a gun, scared, pointing at eachother. How many do you think will stand down from that mexican-standoff? Bullets will start flying and half the room would be gunned down.
What about arming the teachers? A 'responsible' adult in each classroom? Might work. But i'd be rather irked by the thought that my teacher had a handgun. Not to mention ALOT of teachers wouldnt be able to fire it, even in self defence(speaking from my own experience on what kind of teachers i've had.)
It's a shame that these things happend. But anything short of having a super x-ray metaldetector that scans everyone as they enter the peremices(sp?) or a couple of on-duty cops there at all times. (Both wich would cost alot of money!) there's little to be done.

Norway 2011.
As you might know. Both Norway and Sweden are rather strict when it comes to gunlaws. but that didnt stop 'Breivik' as he's commonly known here. To gun down 69ppl at a summercamp and blow up a bomb outside the government building. A total killcount of 77. All in a country with very strict guncontrol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Edit: I just have to add this Wikipedia antry.. THIS. Is why we can't have nice things. "Breivik's usage of shooter video games has sparked debate about further censorship in violent video games." -_-; Really? REALLY?! It's utter fucking bullshit. If videogames had any effect on me in that way, i'd halved the Scandinavian population by now.

not "anyone" can buy a .50' in fact most people can not. Automatic firing modes are illegal for civilians as well unless a permit is obtained but that is strictly for sport shooting. No one in the states argues for an invading army, its more of a protection measure or for hunting. Lets face it, someone breaks into your house with a weapon you're fucked if you dont have one as well. Police only arrive AFTER the crime has happened.
 

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

The problem with this debate is-
[YT]YqzJlBcCsow[/YT]
 

Fernin

6150 rpm and spinning.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I have my gun. I can address a threat from anyone be they armed with their fists, a baseball bat, a piece of wood, a knife, or another gun. For everyone who thinks that because they know some martial arts (I spent years with taekwondo and Judo myself), your abilities mean dick all in the face of multiple attackers, or armed attackers; you're not some magic movie ninja. Further more if you have to defend someone other than yourself you can only address one hostile at a time hand to hand, that leaves plenty of time for them to drag off your sister/mother/brother/wife/husband and beat them to death. That is why I carry a gun, it is the great equalizer and I don't give two squirts of piss about what the anti gun crowd thinks.

As for shit like this school shooting, it's a tragedy yes, but the problem we need to address when it comes to this stuff is the PEOPLE. In a world without guns this man could have just as easily built pipe bombs and started tossing them into room, frankly that would have probably killed even more people.
 
Last edited:

Anubite

That White Guy
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

It makes no sense, giving guns to people without an extensive background check and a psychological evaluation.

New Jersey has a mandatory psych exam and requires several recommendations before you can get a gun. An extensive background check is required where I live. Also not allowed to purchase a gun legally out of state without licences.

When I'm old enough, I can go get my licence Then buy as many semi-autos as I want to turn full auto, or alternatively go to the black market or out on the streets and buy myself high capacity automatics.

Find the black market or a gun store that sells high cap mags and then talk to me. Local gun shows sell semi automatics and a good portion of modern class 3 weapons can be modified to be automatic. You can also buy a high powered hunting rifle and most shootings are from semi automatics or shotguns, not AR-15s and AK-47s.

Guns don't have the intention of killing, people do. So why do we give them out like candy?

The first half I agree with. The second part is not so true, not everyone store sells guns like candy, their not likely to be bought by a teenager because to even let you hold one of the guns you have to have your licence on you and be 18 to get a weapon in my state. Most people go through the process in order to get them and its a long time before the state passes the licencing on your weapon before you get it here. Its not a hey, I am going to go buy a Sig p226 or a 5.7 because I can, its not like that. NJ requires 21 years of age and a slew of recommendations from others, employers and non family related persons to sign a document saying your a stable individual. Restrictions on the class of weapons are all over the place.

Part of NJ firearm laws.

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf

If I am mugged, I take martial arts. I will likely be okay.

Say that to a guy with a 9mm or a dude with a knife, when it actually happens to you, its far different then what you think.


But how many actually defend themselves? And what off ricochets and accidental deaths?

Accidents are applied to anything you do, yes its true you are likely to harm yourself with a firearm, but your more likely to cut your hand off then shoot yourself with a gun because of the frequent use of the knife. Not saying its going to happen to you everyday, but it is something that happens. People are stupid and ricochets aren't that common.

Look at this article, out of 100,000 people, a death by firearm is only 10.2. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

As far as I am concerned, firearms are a double edged sword no matter what side you are on, yes their dangerous and they cause injuries when used improperly, but one bad apple doesn't need to spoil the bunch for the rest of the firearm enthusiast. I personally will be collecting more firearms because of their historical use and others because each piece is an interesting machine or a work of art. I am for more control yes, but still being able to purchase a firearm because its a collecting hobby and one to go to the range shooting, not a homicidal murdering spree.

Take what I said as you like, I am not looking to piss people off, just to get people to read and do bit of research in order to get a solid debate and not an argument going. People get far to mad when discussing things like this and I want a healthy debate.
 

Batty Krueger

DJ Nailbunny
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I own 4 firearms, 3 rifles and 1 handgun. I use them properly at the range and exercise gun safely 24/7. It's not the guns you have to worry about its unstable people.
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I own 4 firearms, 3 rifles and 1 handgun. I use them properly at the range and exercise gun safely 24/7. It's not the guns you have to worry about its unstable people.

I don't own a gun because I'm pretty sure I would kill many, many people if I had one...
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

not "anyone" can buy a .50' in fact most people can not. Automatic firing modes are illegal for civilians as well unless a permit is obtained but that is strictly for sport shooting. No one in the states argues for an invading army, its more of a protection measure or for hunting. Lets face it, someone breaks into your house with a weapon you're fucked if you dont have one as well. Police only arrive AFTER the crime has happened.

Well, that isn't the cops fault, they are not magicians, they can't just appear at the click of their fingers.
 

FenrirUlv

Probably stoned
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

Well, that isn't the cops fault, they are not magicians, they can't just appear at the click of their fingers.
Yea, I didnt see where he said he is in favor of having a handgun in case of burglary. I thought he said he was just against it in general and using those drastic situations as examples. My bad ^-^
 

Validuz

The Not-so-typical Swede.
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

In a world without guns this man could have just as easily built pipe bombs and started tossing them into room, frankly that would have probably killed even more people.

Yes. If someone really want to kill people. He can do it without guns. That's a fact. I remember an episode about serial killers on Discovery Channel. A single guy went on a spree with a screwdriver and killed like 20people in a Russian park. If there is a will. There is a way.

I own 4 firearms, 3 rifles and 1 handgun. I use them properly at the range and exercise gun safely 24/7. It's not the guns you have to worry about its unstable people.

Aye. I've never been that concerned about guns. Guns in the wrong hands on the other hand...
 
Last edited:

Kosdu

Member
Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf

I think I managed to establish that I'm an overconfident idiot in every regard.

Have fun.
 
Top