Pro-gun article

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I think its stupid. And i also think it would be stupid if i posted a thread taking the oppositite position. there are enough stories that could be told supporting either side of the issue, so using stories to support either position is stupid.

Or it could be called substantive.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Well thats the thing. The laws dont say you have to be disciplined to buy a gun. A gun can be sold to any idiot. As a result innocent people (who didnt make the decision to purchase a gun without knowing how to use it) get hurt/killed.

Here (in CA) you have to go through a background check and take a Basic Firearms test. It's fairly well regulated until you get to the area of private sales.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

The military and law enforcement agencies dont give their solders/officers guns without training them first. So why is it we think its acceptable to essentially let anyone buy a gun?

I never said it was.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

You should be required to have formal training, attend classes psych evaluations, etc. and get certification from some sort of independant agency before being allowed to purchase a gun. That would pretty much eliminate gun-related accidents.

It already happens in CA, as I mentioned. Society as a whole needs to be more proactive and less concerned about stigma of mental illness along with pscyh evaluations. We have those for CCW's here. I don't think it would limit accidents, however. People are always going to have accidents and they will be proportionately harmful in direct correlation to the object being used.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

As far as handguns go, I wouldnt have a problem with that. The only reason to own a handgun is to take another human life.

They can also be used as a deterrent and a hobby (i.e. Target shooting).

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Officers of the law are trained, not just in HOW to use their handguns, but WHEN to use them. They are trained, when possible, to shoot to injure, not kill. Unless civillian gun owners are given that same training, No, i dont think they should be allowed to have handguns.

I was in the military, I can tell you categorically that shooting to injure is not realistic. A bit like not targeting a WR's head when you tackle them, then they curl up as you hit them and you hit them in the head.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

This is related to my previous point. If someone breaks into your house and is just trying to steal something, warn them, but dont shoot them unless they express intent to cause you or your family bodily harm. Human life - even that of a non-violent thief - is worth more than property.

What if they feel disrespected by your warning and things escalate?

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

LOL... i was just trying to point out that, there's no "real" solution to gun-related violence. Pretty much any law that they could come up with would have flaws.

There are flaws to everything in life, we just have to mitigate those flaws to the point that they become insignificant.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

LOL, im not talking about Eugenics. I know certain traits can be passed on reproductively, but people still have choices in how they chose to act. For violent crime, i think there are two options - you either reform them or you execute them. Whats the point in allowing someone who deliberately and unlawfully took another persons life to be locked up for life? Youre going to think im joking but i dont think a Judge Dredd type system of justice would be entirely bad. If you catch someone in the act of committing a murder or rape, just shoot them right then and there and save society the time and effort of a trial, long prison term, appeals, etc.
that would be a pretty strong deterrent to committing violent crime too.

With a combination of computers and sociopathic police we can get this shit straightened out.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

People are always going to have accidents and they will be proportionately harmful in direct correlation to the object being used.

They can also be used as a deterrent and a hobby (i.e. Target shooting).

Random thought - how realistic would it be to allow whatever kind of guns you want, but only allow the sale of less powerful ammo. Something like a rubber bullet could still have a good deal of stopping power to defend yourself from an intruder or attacker. There's still the potential for a lethal headshot, but in most cases you'd just knock the wind out of someone or hurt them enough to where they would no longer be a threat.

I was in the military, I can tell you categorically that shooting to injure is not realistic. A bit like not targeting a WR's head when you tackle them, then they curl up as you hit them and you hit them in the head.

i get what youre saying, but the military is different. in that situation, youre trained to shoot to kill because youre fighting in a war. Police officers generally are trained not to go for the kill shot unless its a life/death situation.

What if they feel disrespected by your warning and things escalate?

Then by all means do you what you have to do to protect yourself.