By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Should guns be outlawed in America?

Reasonable said:
Marks said:
Reasonable said:
For me any properly policed and stable society has no need for personal armament. I have no problem with gun clubs, permit based hunting with guns, etc. or gun ownership with a reason in general but just having guns lying around seems pointless - and if you really need them for protection in your home or while mobile then your society isn't stable enough in terms of policing and civic order.

So I guess I'd like to see less need for guns without actually banning them. I would like to see the linkage of firearms to US citizenship and freedoms removed though.


I'd rather let me defence be my responsibility, than the responsibility of a unionized cop who has no stake in what happens to me. 

And when a burglar breaks into your house with a knife (or even a gun) would your rather have a handgun or a phone so you can call 911 and hope they arrive before you're dead. I'd rather have a handgun.

And my question for you is how would we achieve this properly policed society? Do you really want a cop and a few cameras on every street corner? I know I wouldn't. 


The point is I don't expect a burgler to break into my house and I'm comfortable with a sensible level of police visibility and CCTV.  I don't have a gun in my house and I don't need one.  I'd prefer to live like that than feeling I do need a gun.


That makes sense, I see where you're coming from. 



Around the Network
greenmedic88 said:
Marks said:
Reasonable said:
For me any properly policed and stable society has no need for personal armament. I have no problem with gun clubs, permit based hunting with guns, etc. or gun ownership with a reason in general but just having guns lying around seems pointless - and if you really need them for protection in your home or while mobile then your society isn't stable enough in terms of policing and civic order.

So I guess I'd like to see less need for guns without actually banning them. I would like to see the linkage of firearms to US citizenship and freedoms removed though.


I'd rather let me defence be my responsibility, than the responsibility of a unionized cop who has no stake in what happens to me. 

And when a burglar breaks into your house with a knife (or even a gun) would your rather have a handgun or a phone so you can call 911 and hope they arrive before you're dead. I'd rather have a handgun.

And my question for you is how would we achieve this properly policed society? Do you really want a cop and a few cameras on every street corner? I know I wouldn't. 

Off topic, but ditch the handgun for home defense. 12 gauge security shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot makes a bigger statement and is far more effective for that type of application. 

Good point! I'm planning to get a shotgun real soon so I can start skeet shooting, and it won't be the worst for home defence as you say! 



Marks said:

Good point! I'm planning to get a shotgun real soon so I can start skeet shooting, and it won't be the worst for home defence as you say! 

Getting way off topic here, but a shotgun for skeet shooting, while still most definitely a firearm that goes "boom" when you pull the trigger, is not the best for home defense. The barrels are longer (problematic indoors) and have varying degrees of choke, which means the pellets spread at a slower rate than an open choke shotgun.

If you can afford more than one, learn how to handle, aim and shoot with the skeet shooting shotgun, but buy a separate security shotgun for home defense. In a nutshell, that's an open choke (cylindrical bore) 20" barrel, pump action being the most failproof/reliable. Mossberg 500 or Remmington M870. Both are inexpensive and are used by the US military and virtually every police force in the country.

Neither is particularly (at all) appropriate for skeet shooting. At least not competitive skeet shooting. 



They have very few guns in China so they simply use explosives. Gangs should be attacked at their roots (legalize the drugs they sell to destroy their source of income) for a far more comprehensive solution to gun crime.



greenmedic88 said:
Marks said:

Good point! I'm planning to get a shotgun real soon so I can start skeet shooting, and it won't be the worst for home defence as you say! 

Getting way off topic here, but a shotgun for skeet shooting, while still most definitely a firearm that goes "boom" when you pull the trigger, is not the best for home defense. The barrels are longer (problematic indoors) and have varying degrees of choke, which means the pellets spread at a slower rate than an open choke shotgun.

If you can afford more than one, learn how to handle, aim and shoot with the skeet shooting shotgun, but buy a separate security shotgun for home defense. In a nutshell, that's an open choke (cylindrical bore) 20" barrel, pump action being the most failproof/reliable. Mossberg 500 or Remmington M870. Both are inexpensive and are used by the US military and virtually every police force in the country.

Neither is particularly (at all) appropriate for skeet shooting. At least not competitive skeet shooting. 


Yeah that's a really good point. I really only have enough money for one gun right now so I have to decide between a tactical shotgun or a hunting/skeet shotgun. I'm not too worried about home defence right now (I live in a safe area) so I'll probably end up with a regular shotgun, and once I save up enough I'd go for a tactical one or just a handgun or something. I really wanna get an AR-15 too haha, but they're super expensive in Canada. (Haven't seen a good brand of one for under $1,200)

Are you a gun owner yourself? Right now I just have an SKS, whatever I get next is my 2nd gun. 



Around the Network
phinch1 said:
Player1x3 said:
phinch1 said:
Player1x3 said:
phinch1 said:
Player1x3 said:
leatherhat said:
Player1x3 said:
leatherhat said:
Its not about home defense or hunting. Its about making sure the people can always "take care" of the government if they overstep their bounds, which America has apparently forgotten.


You honestly think american people can defeat government controlled US Army? Or did I misunderstood you?


Yes, and without too much difficulty 

then you don't know the first thing about military or modern warfare


And you quite clearly know nothing about history


True. I guess i forgot about the fact that weaponry, warfare tactics and gap between government's arsenal and civilian arsenal hasn't changed during history by the slightest. At all ! Also I forgot that USA has an army just as strong and capable as those of Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia...


oh right, yet with all this amazing tech and new warfare tactics how come they still cant beat the talbian?  why have so many american and british soldiers this year died from IED's and roadside bombs,

plus numbers don't mean jack countless times in history smaller groups have wiped out larger numbered enemies

and finally, don't go bigging up Americas warefare tactics......because they arent that good, with all that tech you'd think there would be no such thing as Friendly fire


Where to start?

1.They DID defeat taliban army... they overthrew their rule in afghanistan  - they just didnt kill all of them, which is nearly impossible since taliban have reduced to guerrilla warfare tactics which can never be completely neutralized

2.Oversees troops don't represent 5% of true military power - every army is billion times more capable on its home soil. its the most comment  knowledge. If you think america would even consider fighting on its home soil the same way they did in afghanistan or iraq, you need to check yourself

3.I never mentioned any numbers

4.Wow, you really don't have clue about these kinds of staff. Military technology has no relations to friendly fire at all. Friendly fire is caused by the mistake of a soldier, not his equipment


oh just that friendly fire seems to happen a lot with americans, so yeah modernwarfare tactics ay ;) ?  just like when they tried to save that british hostege in afgan, i know what we will do, throw a grenade in the room lol dickheads, if ANY country in the world wanted to over throw whoever is in power they could

gadafi is a prime example, civilians fighting with whatever to get rid of a leader in power

 

also what if the 50% of the soliders didnt agree with fighting other american civilians, they would probably join the civilians, why would they want to kill the people they signed up to protect?


Friendly fire happens in all wars in all armies, and its because of soldiers, it has nothing to do with technology. Seriously, this isn't so hard to get.

Gadafi is horrible example. His army is nothing compared to american army. And he was actually winning the war until NATO and the west intervened.

as for 3rd paragraph, that would dependent on the war situation



spurgeonryan said:
bouzane said:

They have very few guns in China so they simply use explosives. Gangs should be attacked at their roots (legalize the drugs they sell to destroy their source of income) for a far more comprehensive solution to gun crime.

Well California seems to be on its way to legalization. Not sure if they will, but if they do this will give us a chance to see how it works in that state.

They will never legalize more toxic drugs, but that will be a start! Or it will be a gateway drug to much more people and we will just see more crime and druggies walking the streets.


Alcohol is already legal and it's the hardest commonly used drug after meth, heroin and cocaine. Please tell me you don't believe in that gateway drug BS that the fearmongering nanny-state government tries to use to justify its Draconian prohibitionary nonsense. Select drugs aren't legal because that would threaten the alcohol industry so they use lobbyists to railroad the democratic process and safeguard their own interests. Legalizing drugs would disrupt the organized crime syndicates that rely on the illicit drug trade and without them, the predatory drug pushing that they utilize to ensure a healthy consumer base would be disrupted offsetting any potential increase in drug usage. Everybody wins with drug legalization with the exception of organized criminals, but that being said they are the only ones who seem to support personal freedom so I opt to support them :/



Marks said:


Yeah that's a really good point. I really only have enough money for one gun right now so I have to decide between a tactical shotgun or a hunting/skeet shotgun. I'm not too worried about home defence right now (I live in a safe area) so I'll probably end up with a regular shotgun, and once I save up enough I'd go for a tactical one or just a handgun or something. I really wanna get an AR-15 too haha, but they're super expensive in Canada. (Haven't seen a good brand of one for under $1,200)

Are you a gun owner yourself? Right now I just have an SKS, whatever I get next is my 2nd gun. 

Dedicated skeet guns are typically over and under models since competitive shooting has a two round limit per pull. I don't know if you're interested in competive skeet shooting or if you just want to be able to actually use your new firearm rather than load it and store it in a gun safe, closet/wherever for emergency use only, in which case invest in a decent over and under model and get your enjoyment out it instead if you like sport shooting.

Handguns are fine, but again, rather than justifying a purchase for "home defense" just buy a quality one if you're interested in shooting at an indoor range for enjoyment. If you don't have any experience with handguns, they require more training to handle safely (BFSC is required in California before one can purchase one legally) and more range time to accurately hit what you're aiming at consistently. 

If it comes off like I'm more into pushing sporting use of firearms rather than advocating the "home defense" argument, I am. You'll get more use and enjoyment out of your firearms that way. Even if you live in a warzone, that whole "home defense" use will in all likelihood NEVER come up. 

And yes, I'm an 8 year US Army veteran, so I do own firearms, not that all veterans do. 



bouzane said:

They have very few guns in China so they simply use explosives. Gangs should be attacked at their roots (legalize the drugs they sell to destroy their source of income) for a far more comprehensive solution to gun crime.

Then the focus would just switch to human trafficking, illegal gambling, whatever is illicit and highly profitable as a result.

On the extreme end of this kind of thinking, one would probably argue that if you just legalized everything, then hey; no one would be a criminal and ergo, there would be no crime, which doesn't work in reality. 

Regardless of what's being regulated (prostitution, drugs, firearms), the key shortcoming is that the laws rarely address the root issue (demand) and instead focus mainly on being able to prosecute once the crime (violating regulatory law) has been committed. 



greenmedic88 said:
Marks said:


Yeah that's a really good point. I really only have enough money for one gun right now so I have to decide between a tactical shotgun or a hunting/skeet shotgun. I'm not too worried about home defence right now (I live in a safe area) so I'll probably end up with a regular shotgun, and once I save up enough I'd go for a tactical one or just a handgun or something. I really wanna get an AR-15 too haha, but they're super expensive in Canada. (Haven't seen a good brand of one for under $1,200)

Are you a gun owner yourself? Right now I just have an SKS, whatever I get next is my 2nd gun. 

Dedicated skeet guns are typically over and under models since competitive shooting has a two round limit per pull. I don't know if you're interested in competive skeet shooting or if you just want to be able to actually use your new firearm rather than load it and store it in a gun safe, closet/wherever for emergency use only, in which case invest in a decent over and under model and get your enjoyment out it instead if you like sport shooting.

Handguns are fine, but again, rather than justifying a purchase for "home defense" just buy a quality one if you're interested in shooting at an indoor range for enjoyment. If you don't have any experience with handguns, they require more training to handle safely (BFSC is required in California before one can purchase one legally) and more range time to accurately hit what you're aiming at consistently. 

If it comes off like I'm more into pushing sporting use of firearms rather than advocating the "home defense" argument, I am. You'll get more use and enjoyment out of your firearms that way. Even if you live in a warzone, that whole "home defense" use will in all likelihood NEVER come up. 

And yes, I'm an 8 year US Army veteran, so I do own firearms, not that all veterans do. 

Oh that's cool man, I have huge respect for veterans. 

And I definitely agree with you, I'm really not into firearms for home defence at all, in my 20 years I've never been the victim of, or even seen a crime take place so I'm really not concerned about defence. I definitely just want one for sporting purposes with home defence being an afterthought. 

I was thinking about just a regular pump shotgun like a Reminton 870 or a Benelli SuperNova. Over/under is definitely the best option for skeet, but above my price range to be honest. Plus I may get into hunting small game in the future like turkey/duck, etc.