Topic: Political Attitude Overall

There might be a topic already on gun control, but I'm interested to know what people think of weapons in general.

For example, in the state of New York it's illegal to own nunchaku.
Ironic in that it was invented during a time where the ownership of weapons such as swords was outlawed.
It's two pieces of wood connected together by a chain.
Although they can produce over 1500 pounds of force per square inch. You have to be able to use one, otherwise you're likely to hurt yourself and be the one knocked down.

They're also illegal in California where concealed carry is perfectly legal. Is that fair?

I think that's slightly ridiculous.  If they followed the kind of logic I am guessing when making the law, then they might as well outlaw baseball bats.  With proper training the hands could be just as deadly as a pair of nun-chucks.  Is there a particular reason that nunchucks are outlawed?  This goes back to the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" kind of argument.

I've never found evidence to suggest they had an educated reason. They're just illegal. It's beyond ridiculous

In the end, it goes back to the idea that if you ban something. People will follow the law and do the right thing. Or they're too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions.
Prohibition. They just up and decided to give people their alcohol back.
Gun Control zones create more violence.
Narcotics. Nobody smokes illegally anymore (har, har).
Warning labels on Chainsaws warning you not to try to stop the blade with your hands or genitals.

That's a little off track but it's along the same lines.

Going back to the original topic.
The United States Government is going down a road I'd rather not drive down.
As the historians have pointed out, if you want to totally conquer a people. Take aware their method of defense.
Banning guns could easily ban hunting. And animal populations would be out of control. Truth be told it helps the evironment.

That's where I stand for weapons. If you take in hand the idea that people will always be in need to defend themselves from nature and themselves.

I agree.  Look at Canada for example.  Our violent crime rate is double than the US.  The gun laws here did not prevent criminals from geting guns but it took guns away from the wrong people.

Criminals don't care, otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.

And what's the worst they can recieve?
In the US it's state law presiding over most cases so it really depends on where you are but quite a few states refuse to give the death penalty. Our jails are filling up and there's still no slow down of crime.

I don't understand how people can believe that people will follow the rules if there's no consequence.
If I brandish my weapon, they'll probably have one is a good reason not to even do it in the first place,

It's said that murder is wrong. It is. But execution is different than murder, as it is a reaction to wrongdoing.
Religious people might want to be wary of the spoiler coming up:
-The higher up/s have no problem in rightful execution-

So, instead of taking nunchucks away from people...we could start emptying out prisons....

Y'know, I'm changing the title of this topic. Since it's evolved from its humble opener.
"Political attitude overall" sounds better.

A way to cover the important issues in need of discussion.
Energy, war, ideas.

Things going on right now.

That was well spoken, i don't even know how to start...

Canadates claim to be for change. But I refuse to believe that they will actually change anything. Because when it comes down to it, they refuse to give up their power or popularity. Which they gain from.... MONEY! And they wont change things because the people donating MONEY ( THE BIG MONEY) don't want certain things to change. They even push the government to pass bills for their interests, despite what the populace wants their representatives to. The more things change the more things stay the same.

And why is it ok for Senators to wear out their welcome and usefulness. Some are just too old to do the job any more. ( for example try searching for NJ Sentator Lautenberg.......)

I live in Montana, so... Like everyone owns a gun here. The two biggest crimes we have in the entire county are drunk driving and drugs. I think there was a murder a while back, it was on the front page of the paper. If everyone has a gun (or other weapon) then no one will want to do anything to anyone. And even if no one had weapons everyone still has hands and feet.

The above was another early morning post so sorry if it's all garbled and rambly.

blame the mafia and mobs for getting nunchaku banned. they used them all the time in their fights during the roaring 20s and 30s.

Somehow, I'm skeptical. But curious.

They ARE versatile weapons....so I could see that. I wouldn't know.

Versatile after a long time. Just practicing with my wood ones I get sore, it's not a very easy trick to master.

Gun control really bothers me. It doesn't take guns aw ay from criminal, but the lawabiding people will have no defense against them. In Switzerland, it is illegal not to own a gun, and they have very little crime.

Anyways, I don't see why nunchucks should be banned.

Weapons in general???

hmm.........

well I think they're ok for sport...........but overall I hate guns.
They do nothing but cause more problems between the human race.
The invention of the gun is what I call a genocidal invention.
Since stupid poeple carry weapons on the street for dumb reasons, others have them to protect themselves from those who use them incorrectly and wrong..........or from those who are too dangerous.

its a neverending cycle of humans not trusting each other. Gun distance us away from each other, and I dont mean to sound cheesy but, we should learn how to come together and act as one nation of a family.

The political view on guns from the average politician is irrelavent to trying to find the solution.

TW

Hate the people who use them, not the guns themselves.

Guns are a tool, and just like any tool they can be used incorrectly. Its not the guns that are the problem, its the people who use them.

Overall I do think that if i knew that the person living next door, had a gun and could come over anytime he wanted kick down the door and shoot me, would kind of freak me out. But hey if it keeps down crime...Sacrifice of self-comfort sometimes need to be made.

Plus i would have my own gun :P

The gun is not the worst invention, not the reason we have crime and violence I don't believe.

It' an evolution of a system that had been going on for hundreds of thousands of years. The concept of dominion. Wars, weapons, and violence are integral in every facet of human life.
I say had because the current attitude of conflict has changed considerably, economics has paved the way to startling peace in comparison to the past. Albiet it's created whole new problems, and will especially when the non-renewable energy sources are below the point of desired-quantity, and then afterwards when a viable renewable energy source is found.

Even if we took all the bombs away, all the guns, and knives and whatever away. Someone would create them again, and do it because they could.

The plus to guns is that they help nature, at least in the United States. Responsible (that's a pretty big stretch these days) hunters contribute money to protecting wildlife everytime they purchase equipment and licenses. Hunting keeps animal populations down and feeds people. But they're always that one deviant who decides to screw it up for the rest of us.
I agree, they're a tool. And like anything can be sharpened and bent and molded to suit the needs as a weapon.

I just don't believe it's natural for people to get along. The idea of a close knit group of individuals in nature doesn't exist. Ants aren't individuals for example. All animals compete with one another and strive to one up the other.
It's amazing we can even think about animal rights, or humanitarianism.
Animal rights...that's a subject I might touch later.

Firstly you're right Mandal, if you think about it, almost ANYTHING can be a deadly weapon.
Does it bother you more that your neighbor could kick the door in and stab you to death with a butter knife? EXACTLY my point. There is nothing wrong with guns or knives, they are simply tools, just as Mandal stated.
Put them in the wrong hands, there's your problem.

Chainsaw is a tool. But one that has to be used with care and caution. But as a counter argument. What is a gun really intended? At least a chainsaw has the purpose of felling trees etc.

(sorry i feel the need to play devil's advocate.... personal feelings aside)

That's a good point.
I think it boils down to gun powder, that's what a gun's original intent was. And so from firecrackers to firepower.
But as a projectile weapon, it's the bow. An amount of force moving a projectile toward and into a target. Which is a hunting tool, turned into a revolutionary weapon.

Sort of a wide simile, but, not a bad analysis I hope.

Well the poeple who carry guns ARENT the problem............its the guns themselves.

ok lets make an example........

Lets just say a man named Joe buys the first ever made gun. The poeple in his community are aware that Joe has the power to END A LIFE. So they decide to buy themSELVES guns to protect themselves from thier own fear. Now we have an entire community of gun owners. Somewhere along the line, somebody will lash out for whatever reason.............and shoot. This causes an unbalanced community and NOBODY trusts anyone else that owns a gun.
No more trust..............no more community.

This is exactly what has happened in America today....................our country is now unstabble, unbalanced, and nobody trusts anyone else, and the single invention of GUNS created this..........

lets just put it this way............................
No guns..................Massively less killings.

TW

Guns can't kill people by themselves last time I checked. They are inanimate objects. I do see your point, but I still don't understand it because knives are the same way. It's the person holding the weapon, regardless of what it is. They are the ones who make the choice.

Thats true. Im not saying guns are the cause of all of our problems, all Im saying is that guns and weapons are the start of all the lack of trust. The actions themselves are OUR responsibility.

think back to what I said. ;)

TW

Nah. It is the people's mentality that is the problem. A guy decides to buy himself a gun, for protection "just in case of that nasty situation ever occurring where it can be put to a good use." It's the mentality of the other people that they believe he might use it on someone else that causes them to buy their own weapons. So it's not the people who own the guns, it's the people who don't own guns.

Regardless of the fact that there are entire hunting clubs and communities? Conventions and gun shows?

Guns don't create situations like this any more than swords used to. The only difference is that no one carries them around openly anymore. You don't see a man walking down the street with a sword strapped to his back next to the guy with a spear.

If the caveman in the other cave has a spear, you'll probably get one.
If the lady next door has the first electric vacuum you'll probably get one too.
It's called a rat race and it can definantly upset communities. But it can be anything, the fashion industry works this way.
But I'm sorry to say I don't believe guns are the problem. Because of a lack of evidence to suggest it.

For example. Fewer people are killed in random school shootings when the students or staff are allowed to carry guns on campus.

Definitely siding with the pro-guns. Our country was created and maintained by "the single invention of guns".

This seems to have turned mostly into a "morality of firearms" debate, but hey, maybe I'll speak a piece.

I've always loved guns; that's not to try to puff out my chest and inflate my biceps, but it's genuinely true. I've found certain ones actually beautiful, and not even in a creepy killer kind of way, they're art as well as tools. Tools can be used for good or bad, which I think has been established, and are not evil or benevolent in and of themselves. As I used as a reference before, men with guns have created the country we have today, and kept it alive for hundreds of years. Armed soldiers have saved millions of lives, and yes at the cost of thousands more, but ideally thousands that would have only done damage to the world.

Until a more deadly weapon is invented the bad guys will always have guns, and the good guys will need them to be able to fight back, that's just how it is. War causes imbalance and mistrust, but that existed millions of years before men even dreamed of guns.

Than can happen with literally any object. So by your theory, every object should be illiegal

If people didn't have guns, they'd kill with bows, without bows, they'd use knives, withought knives, they'd use rocks. This would not make murder go down, but it would make hunting go down. Animal populations would grow too high, which leads to starvation, and the possibility of extinction, plus more car accidents.

You seem to have ignored at least one piece of information that shows a major flaw to your argument; by law, every man in Switzerland must own a gun, and they have an extremely small crime rate. Also, Canada has stricter gun laws than the U.S., and their crime rate is nearly double.

lets put it this way:
More guns... massivly less murder

You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

As a side note as a hunter I'd be fine with no guns.  COMPOUND BOWS FTW!

:P

I need to get into practice with my compound, my Uncle wants to take me hunting but I can't hit much yet. It's either been too cold or I've been too busy to practice.
The worst is I'm left eye dominant, so I have to hold it in my left hand, I'm right handed.
I wouldn't mind trying to hunt with an atlatl and a spear, not to keep myself alive but as sport. That would be an experience.

But moving on.

I completely disagree.  It's been proven time and again *and convieniently covered up and/or under-reported* that the MORE private gun owners there are in an area, the LESS crime there is, INCLUDING gun-crime/murder.  Look at England.  Since the private ownership of handguns *I think gun ownership in general was outlawed, but I don't recall so I'll just say pistols* was banned gun related crime skyrocketed.  I believe it is the same in Australia and Canada *Canada hasn't banned gun ownership entirely...yet...but their restrictions are much higher then here and the crime rate has gone up accordingly; will source this later if anybody thinks I don't know what I'm talking about*

ok... what exactly do you base this example on?  did this happen to you or your family?  where a neighbor bought a gun so your whole neighborhood bought an arsenal to fight him off if he went on a rampage, despite being a honest and good neighbor *or even a cranky, pain in the butt neighbor* ?  Not to rip you, but that sounds like a totally unrealistic scenario unless you can back it up with something. 

My primary issue with your comments is I'd like to know what it is you suggest?  You seem to want to reminisce about the good old days before guns when man hacked each other to death with swords and axes in the more brutal methods imaginable more then you want to talk about current issues.  The fact is, for better or worse, we DO have guns, and they're not going anywhere   

ummm..... I know you're smarter then this dude.  I'm fairly sure you could find an instance or two of countries having internal 'instability, off-ballance, and lack of trust' before the invention of firearms.  You need to check your history

no, let's put it this way:

No guns, entire civilizations have been purged from history anyway, one bloody swing of a sword at a time.  Check recent events in parts of Africa....it still happens

It's not "OUR" responsibility, it's the responsibility of the individual person who pulled the trigger.  You can't hold all gun owners responsible for the actions of some wacko.  Not sure if that's the point you're trying to make, but when you want all to give up their rights for the actions of a few, the essentially what you're saying     

I'm going to make this as clear as I can, and keep in mind that I'm not belittling you in anyway, but am trying to make clear my point of view. 

What I think it is you stand for based on what I've read, and feel free to make it clear if you feel differently, is that you want to trade your rights and the rights of everybody else even if they don't agree with you for the illusion of safety.  The cold hard truth in life is that if you're suddenly faced with a person who for whatever reason wants to take your life and you're unable to defend yourself, chances are you're going to die.  The "Illusion" is that the police/government will protect you, but in reality, the police force's job is to catch your murderer...not to save your life.  There is no escaping this, for there is no way to prevent something you don't know is coming, no way for the police to arrest or prevent before a crime has been committed.  Only your own actions can save you in a dire situation. 

So, if you're walking down your street, and some phsyco comes at you with a gun, with a knife, with a friggin golf club, with the intent of taking your life and there's no cop in sight, you'd better pray that that neighbor you fear who did nothing wrong other then uphold his right to keep and bear arms is around to save your life

I really hope you'll think about that   ;)

Yeah Ralin, I just got attacked by a psycho with a gun at my bus stop on wednesday :P

Gun laws......hmm.....

Well, I agree that everyone needs a weapon to defend themselves in case some bad thing might happen in the future, but seriously, no wacko with a gun is probably gonna try and kill you. That usually doesn't happen to people. Just get a weapon to be safe, and know that you'll probably never have to use it.

I agree that if a murderer comes to your house, wth a gun, and when you notice the murderer is there and call 911, the police will be too late. I'm not sure how long it takes to get police cars to your house, but the average paramedic response takes 20 minutes. What if by some miracle you were still live, but losing blood fast from geting shot in the lung, as well as having trouble breathing? You'd die before help came.

And if everyone had a gun, burglars wouldn't rob as many houses in fear that they would get shot.

That's my 2 cents.

ummmm....not sure what your point is, considering this:

...is EXACTLY my point

The rest of your quote is pretty much spot on imho.  There is always that possibility something will happen, no matter how rare, and if you can't protect yourself or your family, nobody else likely will. 

There's a simple slogan out there that's used for bumper stickers, but it's so true it's brilliant.  'When they outlaw guns, only outlaws have them'.  Them and the police... that's a whole other argument on why it's not good when the Gov. are the only people armed..

Since I haven't been around much, instead of rushing into this debate, I'm going to add my own twist to the discussion.

I am pro-guns in the same way that it seems a lot of people here are. I agree almost wholeheartedly with Ralin, but here's my question:

If you think it's right to own a gun for your own protection, do you feel that all guns should be legal? If you own a pistol for your own protection, why not an AK-47 or any other assault rifle?

ps. I think nunchaku being illegal is probably better for those people out there who think they "could totally use them correctly." A lot less broken bones for stupid users.

Gun crime higher in America than any other country. There is very little gun crime in the Uk becuase they are banned. Civilians do not need guns.

If civilians don't need guns, then I'd say governments don't need them either.
Or we can repeat some major moments in history where weapons have been taken from the people by governments in order to better subjugate them.

Governments need them for authority and keeping peace. What does a civilians need a guns for, cleaning their teeth?

Governmentsa are made of people though, when you get someone or someones on their high horse it doesn't matter who they are. They'll become corrupted.
It only takes one person to decide no one but the enforcers and government need weapons, and then, after it's implementation. It isn't a long jump of logic that you have superiority. You can do whatever you desire.

What do civilians need them for? To protect themselves from those who are supposed to be protecting them.

For fighting back when the military or law enforcement doesn't happen to be standing right next to them as they're getting raped, robbed, or assaulted. I hear from the grapevine that doesn't happen all that often.

Governments dont have weapons, military and police have weapons not politicions :P. Why would we need to protect ourselves from police? Why should somone need a gun, noone needs somthing thats only use is killing. How is it better to have guns allowed if more people die because of it than if they wern't allowed.

Politicians make the descisions that guide the actions of the military and other enforcement agencies!
Or are we unware of the KGB and the Waffen SS of Russia and Nazi Germany respectively? Two orginizations that weren't politicians but were definantly affected by them.

That, and I don't need a gun pointed to someone's head to do them harm. I could easily just do it with a pencil or my bare hands. It's too idealistic to believe otherwise.

Yes, that is a fair point but i dont see America in any danger of somthing similar anytime soon. As far as i know the KGB was only the Russian secret service. But do you really want guns if they cause more loss of life which could easily be prevented. Whatch the film Bowling for Columbine that may change your veiws.

I love the 2nd.

Even without guns, people would still kill people. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to label a piece of metal as if it's the antichrist?
I own two swords, two shotguns, a set of nunchuks, a compound bow and yet I've never killed anyone in my life. My father collects shotguns and rifles, owns a revolver, he hasn't either. Sort of goes against this particular theory. Why does one crazed villian have to ruin the world for the rest of us?

The only thing is that people get their hands on guns and do something stupid with them. If the owner is responsible then its ok. But I understand peoples concerns. Maybe having stricter weapon control would make our country safer.

I dislike Michael Moore.

Someone pointed to how much should be open to the public. Now here's an interesting topic. Where's the line on firearms? If we allow pistols, what about assault rifles and such?

What most people who try to work on gun control figure is the bullet. For example, my state legislator is trying to get the .50 caliber bullet banned. She believes that there's no need for a bullet powerful enough to rip your head off from over 200 yards away. Of course, others will complain that if there's no .50 caliber bullet, what about the rifles that use them? People use those for hunting. You will have completely just made their time in getting a license and ammo, hunting gear, the rifle, a whole ton of stuff, a complete waste of time (P.S. - I'm with these guys). Of course, it naturally makes them angry. So, they fight back. With marches and pickets.

Sabot round, the bullet is held in a large casing that fits the caliber of the rifle and when it leave the barrel, the casing splits away and falls harmlessly to the ground, the downsized bullet carries on

I think if you have fully automatic guns then thats a bit much, hunters dont need them, and it only provokes, oh i dunno, killing people in the shoppingmall. Not to say that having a gun that can shoot a ton of rounds a second makes people kill others but if someone who has one decides to kill people one day would you rather have him or her having to pull the trigger every time they shoot or squeezing it down and sweeping it across a crowd of people?

Yeah I have to agree with AA here. Nobody needs a fully automatic weapon in my opinion, as there is no use for them (except for in the military).

People who collect tons of guns/swords and other weapons just so they can have them.....well, I don't understand that. One weapon is enough to protect yourself with. If it's hunting rifles, then that's different because you need different rifles for different terrains. But a sword? What would you do with it besides look at it, or maybe swing it around a bit?

I practice martial forms with one of mine. And the other is a ceremonial piece I keep for Inspiration.
For the experience, it's amazing to hold a sword and move through a martial arts form with it. It's an exciting recreation of history.
But to have a collection of something and not use it...it's like collecting army tanks I guess. You do it because you can.

There was a guy who strapped a sword to his back and held up traffic for a few hours while the police delegated with him.
And a lady who was convicted of a hate crime for chasing two spanish kids with a katana.
I guess that's what you do with them.

As radical as it sounds, I don't believe there should be any regulation on the type of weapons people can own. 

The Second Amendment doesn't say .."the right to keep and bear arms...as long as it's not bigger then such and such a caliber."  I know all the arguments about "But the Founding Fathers didn't know guns would someday be able to do this, and they never thought society would decide that." 

#1, people forget that at that time, people HAD the most advanced rifles in the world.  Many if not most civilians HAD rifles for home defense that were equivalent to our most advanced combat rifles.  It's only in recent times that armies have consistently had weapons that were better or even as good as were in the civilian field.

#2, there is a fundamental American principle that is broken by the banning of firearms: The ASSUMPTION of guilt on the part of legal purchasers of firearms that they're out to do something wrong, when there is no evidence to support this. 

and #3, there is a dangerous and Very slippery slope when you allow the government, ANY government, to slowly but surely take your means of defense.  Maltese hit it perfectly: Nazi German, Communist Russia, and most other totalitarian regimes have set a very clear pattern that we should learn from, and one of their trademarks is the confiscation of weapons from their populace. 

I'm not saying the gun laws banning machine guns back in the 20's were forwarding a Nazi agenda.  I'm not saying the restrictions placed on gun ownership in the 90's were directly linked to a desire to take us to Communism.  And I'm not saying that the even stricter laws that politicians want to further impose now are linked to a scheme to take us to either of these systems.  These are steps taken by people who I think have the honest intention of doing good as they see it.

What I AM saying is that no matter how good the intentions, they mean nothing if a stripping of our basic Right to defend ourselves is the cost.  And it is the cost many people are willing to pay for the promise of safety, while they get back little to no results, or as in many cases have shown do the reverse of the promised bliss and tranquility.  The ironic this is, the more gun laws Fail *every school shooting was in 'Gun Free Zones,' probably Every work place shooting broke dozens of city ordinances against allowing LAW ABIDING Citizens from carrying guns, and the list goes on*, the more laws are suggested because the last flurry of them apparently wasn't strong enough..... the sad thing is so many people agree

It is part of the natural order that governments wish to consolidate power, and the only way for them to do this is to take the rights of their citizens.  They do it in the name of public order and safety........yet I wonder how many of us feel as safe and secure at home as our grandparents and their grandparents did...

Obviously, but maybe not on such a high scale i'm talking about gun crime in particular not all murders, you really think the banning of guns wouldn't affect gun crime? Maybe becuase you're not a criminal or a person with a low sense of morality.

Maybe this will answer your question:

These quotes are all in response to the RISE in crime after the sweeping firearm regulation that engulfed Australia in 1996, which included the confiscation and destruction of 640,000 legally owned hunting rifles and shotguns.  All of this was the cause of a single mad man, and the anti-gun movement fueled media frenzy that followed

So to go back to your question, Yes, tighter regulation of LEGALLY OWNED guns Does affects the crime rates.... and not in a very good way, certainly not for Australians in the late 90's.

Not that I consider this as even the main point against banning the ownership of firearms.  I will NOT forfeit my weapons to the government, no matter what reason they give me.  Armed, I'm a citizen.  Disarmed, I'm a subject.  That might sound archaic or corny to some of you who have been taught how Government is our friend and lives to serve us, but I believe that barring a major turn in political events, you'll see how true it is within our lifetime... and it really frightens me

What do you mean by maybe??