Welcome to Gaia! ::

<3 </3

Should there be tighter gun control?

Total Votes:[ 0 ]
This poll closed on December 2, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.
< 1 2 3 4 5
Rufas Lance

Hey what do you know about the technology thats being tested on guns that makes it so the gun can't fire unless its in the owners hand, some like elctronic watch or somthing, I'm woundering because I don't think I want that one mine because if it fails I still want to fire the gun and not have it lock up.


Too fancy, expensive, unproven, slow, etc.
No, not by any means. It is so ridiculous, the things you have to do to get a gun. It takes a 3 day background check to get a .22 rifle for God's sake! The gun control laws are fine as is and don't need anything done to them. As for selling guns on the street, the time in jail could be upped but nothing on the legal sale of guns needs to change. scream
Zane_Couger
No, not by any means. It is so ridiculous, the things you have to do to get a gun. It takes a 3 day background check to get a .22 rifle for God's sake! The gun control laws are fine as is and don't need anything done to them. As for selling guns on the street, the time in jail could be upped but nothing on the legal sale of guns needs to change. scream



Why not do something so that the background check is unncessary, as it should be?

The task of proving that one will be comparatively safe with a gun should be a task that is done no more than once every few years, no matter how many guns you buy, I say.


A liscence that you can only get by proving that you know how to safely use a gun, and maybe that you can't get if you would fail the background check for buying one (EG, if you have commited a violent crime in the past...)...

... wouldn't that make things better all around?
The problem with that is the government decides what qualifications a person needs to have to be "safe" with a weapon.

The right to bear arms was put in the Constitution to protect the citizenry from an abusive national government.

Gun control enthusiasts try to convince people that they were intended for the state militias, and the national guard has taken their place, therefore there should be no guns out of military hands. They fail to address the fact that the state militias were STATE controlled and not nationally controlled. The NATIONAL guard is not.

Though it may feel like guns are only a nuisence today, we have to ensure people always have the right to carry them, or it will be that much easier to take freedoms from us in the future.
Xenoc1de
The problem with that is the government decides what qualifications a person needs to have to be "safe" with a weapon.
Yeah. And if those qualifications don't make sense, there will be so many groups all over the people responsible, it'll solve itself.

Quote:
The right to bear arms was put in the Constitution to protect the citizenry from an abusive national government.
All well and good, except that it doesn't.

Consider the Branch Davidians. Their guns did them no good; now, I don't think the government's abusive, but citizens with guns against the military with tanks and planes and bombs and training are going to lose, without some serious environmental compensating factors.

What protects us against an abusive national government is the fact that there is no such thing as a unified monolithic "government". The parties are split on many things, there are the various branches... the simple fact is that "the government" is not a single entity and thus is our own best protection againts itself.

Quote:
Gun control enthusiasts try to convince people that they were intended for the state militias, and the national guard has taken their place, therefore there should be no guns out of military hands. They fail to address the fact that the state militias were STATE controlled and not nationally controlled. The NATIONAL guard is not.

Though it may feel like guns are only a nuisence today, we have to ensure people always have the right to carry them, or it will be that much easier to take freedoms from us in the future.
Yes, I agree.

But we still need to protect our communities from the dangers of people using dangerous implements without proper knowledge of appropriate safety measures.

I am not advocating gun control. I am advocating gun safety. If you can prove that you are safe with a gun, I don't care what you have as long as it's not inherently unsafe. (for instance, explosives are out; you can't be safe using them.)

Safe with a gun and want a full-automatic? Sure, go ahead if you can find someone to sell it.

Now, use that to kill people (except in self-defense etc, obviously) and you will never be considered safe, and will be lucky to ever see sunlight again, but until you do that, feel free to have the weapon. Kill all the deer you want, hang it on your wall, perform interpretive dance with it, I don't care as long as you are being safe.
Lets also all remember that most violent gun crimes are commited with handguns, and not automatics or rifles. Also, there has never been any statistical evidence, only tragic stories, that reducing the amount of guns will make people safer. It may just mean more people bludgeoned to death with tire irons and baseball bats (the number one weapon of choice in aggravated assaults, by th way).
Xenoc1de
Lets also all remember that most violent gun crimes are commited with handguns, and not automatics or rifles. Also, there has never been any statistical evidence, only tragic stories, that reducing the amount of guns will make people safer. It may just mean more people bludgeoned to death with tire irons and baseball bats (the number one weapon of choice in aggravated assaults, by th way).


Right. But requiring that safety be known before you get a gun will make things safer.

Take, yes, those tragic stories of kids playing with their father's gun and accidentally shooting themselves or a friend.

If the father had been forced to take a test wherein he had to list out the proper steps to take when putting a gun away before he was able to get the gun, those situations wouldn't've happened (at least, not as often), because the father would then have had to have known how to safely store a gun.
I think there should be tighter controls on certain kinds of arms, but I'm completely against banning guns all together...that's just asinine.
Rufas Lance
Charley
stalebsicuit
i thaught i expressed that point in there


the powder count behind the bullet is an important factor, but my over-all point was that assualt rifles are realy not all that powerful, in fact they are between pistols and hunting rifles, so why are they the main target of anti-gun lobyists?


Don't try to peg logic to anti-gunners. The answer to that question is simply "because they look scary". It's consistently been the only common soapbox for them to stand on.

Hell if I was a gun lobbiest I'd target pistols thats what causes the most ammounts of deaths a year.

Charley
stalebsicuit
i thaught this would be itneresting to add to the mix



i will give you three assault rifle types
the .223-(ar15) is a little bigger than a .22(hence .223)
the ak-47 shoots a 7.62+39(around a .30)
the G3 shoots a .308(guess what around a .30 to)
do you know what a hunting rifle shoots?
30-06(realy big) or close to a 7.62+54! the ak is a 7.62+39 and its a .30
a 9 mm is close to a .36 while a .38 and .357 are about the same size also
so this means the handguns pack more of a punch(size wise) than the "assualt rifle ammo"
so why do we consider these more dangerous? this is for you un-educated peeps on the subject at hand biggrin
(on the side note, a .357 and .389 are the same size realy, only diffrence is the powder behind the round realy, .357 is alot stronger, but size wise they are almost the same)


This means nothing, as the width of the bullet is only one factor in the power of a cartridge.

The 30-06 is as wide as a 7.62x39mm bullet. The difference? A far bigger powder charge.

The powder charge and the bullet's shape is more indicative of a cartridges "power" than its sheer width. For instance, .45 ACP is less likely to defeat kevlar than a 9mm bullet, even though the .45 is considerably larger. This is due to the mass of the bullet (grain) compared to the powder charge behind it, which in turn creates muzzle velocity. The higher the velocity and the lower the impact radius (bullet width), the more likely it will punch through armor.

No, the ak bullet is a .30 not around.
The ".308, is actualy a 7.62x51mm bullet like one in an m60, or most battle rifles. Its also a 30. don't know why they call it a .308 though...
A 30-06 is a 7.62x63 Huge bullet. Err ammount of kenetic energy is huge.
A 9mm, .380 auto, 38, and .357 are actualy all the same diameter. If your talking about grain wise in bullets it depends. The .223 can go as low as 55 grains, while a .38 can go around 125 grains. but the big dog sniper cartridges can go way up to like 300 grains. even more. but they have a lot less kenetic energy then rifles.

Now for the other part...

The 9mm will do more damage against kevlar because it is a smaller bullet and travels faster, people still choose .45 because they say its harder for it to be deflected off of windows and sometimes skulls (Mostly not dirrect hits) Most cops don't worry about shooting at guys with kevlar, because they solumly have it.
(Some info may be wrong by the way, but I'm pretty sure I'm on)
hmm, i thaught a .380 was a 9mm, like 9+17 er something. maybe im confused i know there are four 9mm rounds

theres the .380(i might be confused) the makarov 9+18

the glock/ mp-5 rounds and what have you 9+19 and then a 9+24(not sure what gun its for)
Rufas Lance
Charley
Rufas Lance

Hell if I was a gun lobbiest I'd target pistols thats what causes the most ammounts of deaths a year.


If they put their ire on saturday night specials like Lorcin and Bryco, which have dangerous designs that pose an equal danger to the user as to the target, I would get behind them 100%.

When it comes to guns that are poorly made, I'll stand with the gun grabbers on that one. I want guns that will fire, and do so when the trigger is pulled. Anything less is just a russian roulette hobby kit.

Hey what do you know about the technology thats being tested on guns that makes it so the gun can't fire unless its in the owners hand, some like elctronic watch or somthing, I'm woundering because I don't think I want that one mine because if it fails I still want to fire the gun and not have it lock up.
i saw that, but it looks like a bad idea for several reasons


-its to expensive(or at first it would be)
-a hassle
-to fire the gun the gun must be pointed away from the hand, not towards it, so a bad guy could still cap ya if he came at you from behind
-and they can put in regestration stuff on it pretty soon(and im against that stuff)
Zane_Couger
No, not by any means. It is so ridiculous, the things you have to do to get a gun. It takes a 3 day background check to get a .22 rifle for God's sake! The gun control laws are fine as is and don't need anything done to them. As for selling guns on the street, the time in jail could be upped but nothing on the legal sale of guns needs to change. scream
naw, it was only on handguns at first, and the brady bill is what did ******** losershoe clinton)

and we can get around that now with the instant check system, how do you think people at gun shows get their guns home the same day?
stalebsicuit
hmm, i thaught a .380 was a 9mm, like 9+17 er something. maybe im confused i know there are four 9mm rounds

theres the .380(i might be confused) the makarov 9+18

the glock/ mp-5 rounds and what have you 9+19 and then a 9+24(not sure what gun its for)


The .380 handgun has the same diamater round as a 9mm. It has a shorter cartridge casing though.
So long as they don't get into a manicas hands i don't care if you have an artilery piece sitting in your yard

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games