StarGateWars Forums

What do you think?

Personally, I'd say that weapons available on the weapon market should remain a mean to defend oneself from attacks and raids coming from thief, thugs and robbers. Not a mean to assault people as if one was a mercenary. Buying M16 and similar weapons is definitely not accountable as a mean to defend oneself, but as a mean to start a mini war like A-Team would.
That means I criticize countries having very strict laws against every kind of weapons. Because there should be a middle level between everything is ok and having several walls in front of you before being able to buy a single gun to keep at home to defend oneself (not to mention countries with utterly stupid laws which don't recognize the right to defend oneself if assaulted to fire back, whether you are at home or at your shop).

the gun laws are the best thing the Aus Govt ever did.. there has not been one mass killing since it was implemented.

but here are some US stats to mull over
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

France is on the other hand a perfect example of why very strict laws on guns and big lack of recognizing legitimate self-defense, is FAILING in facts: people who defend themselves are prosecuted (!!!!) and weapons even assault weapons flourish in the suburban areas while policemen are sometimes asked to go unarmed (!!!!) and honest citizens have barely any mean to defend themselves against thugs...
I highly approve the stance in the US that against people who try to rob in your house, you are allowed to defend yourself with a gun or other defensive weapon (such as those used by deer hunters for example), same for shop owners to defend themselves and not be seen later as "guilty" by justice.

fem fatale wrote:the gun laws are the best thing the Aus Govt ever did.. there has not been one mass killing since it was implemented.

Indeed.

There is no legitimate reason to need or use a semi of full automatic gun (military not included), which I would say should be at the very least banned from the public. I personally have an Australian firearms license for hunting on my property, and all that requires is a 22 single shot, a centrefire would be overkill, not just expensive to use. Any magazine type (integral, tube etc) would of course make it easy to hunt with but not necessary.
Handguns would probably be the most debated, in Australia we technically can't obtain one unless we belong to a club (and use it there) or have a security type job.
We cannot reason with using it for 'defensive' means like the US can (if you apply for any gun license it will be rejected if you use that for reasoning), and they're restricted because they're easily concealed. I suspect there would be outcry in the US if handguns were restricted as well since, I take it, woman would opt for them and to be be honest if you want to defend yourself against an attacker a handgun would be far easier to hide and obtain.

Anyways...Aus has a few categories, basically if you own a farm, grow things have stock etc, they allow you to have shotguns, center and rim fires with magazines. If you're an avid hunter you can still obtain those except they have to be single shot. Which to me seems a legit and reasonable view.

What I do hate is the government capitalizing on it, which I have no doubt Obama would. It costs upwards of 250-300 to just get your license alone (which requires renewal every 2-3 years) and probably takes about 6 months (they slide in months of this so called 'cool down period'), you then have to obtain a permit to acquire a firearm (more money + more months of 'cool down'). You legally have to have a proper gun safe as well, dyna bolted to the ground or over 150 kg so it can't be easily moved, if you don't have one then you have to get one.
Then there is the whole rigmarole of actually buying the gun, ANY selling or buying of a gun has to go through a proper gun dealer. Bullets are limited as well, there is a maximum you can buy (this doesn't phase me really, the maximum set here is quite high, I can probably stock up for maybe a year, just for myself).

Guns are more restricted in Australia than people can see. They were also thinking about increasing licensing costing and adding more cool down to deter people from buying guns a few months ago as well . Bloody idiots.

I suspect handgun related crimes in the US would be quite high as well, so it would be a delicate balance between ease of self defence and decreasing crime rates further.

Computer.You're All IdiotS And I'll Explain Tomorrow When I'm Back at My Comport

Everyone and their grandparents uses the US as an example of why it's bad to have guns (small, medium large, semi, full, whatever), but nobody looks at Switzerland where i believe the law requires people own guns and they have some of the lowest crime rates in any Euro-country.

Also, when Britain banned guns in the 1920,s crime doubled nearly overnight.

And what about this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html


That article says it all really, i'm pro gun and always will be...but wasn't always so until i looked deeper at it.


Ps, there are also MANY examples from the US where citizen gun owners thwarted criminal acts, and also mass killings in other schools simply because they were carrying a gun.


Edit, dunno if it's been said already but the guy who killed those Sandy Hook children was on one of those Prozak drugs and a nut job. his mum owned guns and even though her son was a "nut job" she never kept the guns locked up...but lets not talk about that eh!? instead lets discuss how guns kill and are bad (even though i have never seen a gun shoot anybody without a human behind the trigger).

Why does everyone use Switzerland as if it's a valid comparison? There's a massive difference - it's called education and training. They are part of a militia - having undergone various tests and training and repeat call-ups. They do NOT rock up to their local Walmart and buy a semi-automatic rifle. They are NOT stupid enough to leave multiple guns and their ammunition within access of others. They DO treat guns with respect.

Yes, guns don't kill people. But stupid Americans do. How do you solve the problem?

1) Educate and train citizens in responsible gun ownership and use.
OR
2) Take away their precious guns.

If 1) doesn't work, then 2) becomes necessary...

Arm teachers with M16s.

Will also teach those kids to listen and respect their goddamned elders.






[spoiler]Obviously this is in -mild- jest. I am Titanium.[/spoiler]

i really dont think banning assault weapons will change anything, get a shot gun, with a room that big, 2 or 3 shots and you could cover the whole room, take 4 hand guns, average (civilian) handgun without reloading can hold 10 rounds, thats 40 shots, that can do just as much damage. i see why people are complaining, but nothing would really change, they would just use different weapons. now i know somebody is going to say then get rid of all guns, but many people dont realize how easy it is to get guns without registering (which would become illegal methods at that point), as well as how many guns are already in the system, between how easy it is to get guns into the country, as well as how many are already here (unregistered since many states do not have to register them), all it would do is make it so people who dont obey the law have them since it will still be very easy to get them, or they would get them before the law took effect, or they already have them (and again, same can be said with assault weapons as normal weapons, lots in system, and only people who dont obey the laws will keep them, and will still be easy to get if somebody really wanted one, hell, they aren't even that hard to build, i know how to put one together, not hard, just a few modifications to a normal rifle and you have an assault rifle).

personally i think it would be more productive to make gun classes mandatory so people know the proper conduct for them, cause if it was, the mother probably would not have had left them where Adam had access to them despite him being mentally unwell. the anti-gun advocates are not treating what happened as a tragedy like it was, but instead using it to push their political propaganda to get one step closer to banning guns

realistically , civillians should never h\ve been allowed guns.

but since they have been and taking them away would be impossible, at least stop selling assault rifles , or large capacity mags, there is no sense or reason to having any need for that much ammo

~Guerrero~ wrote:i really dont think banning assault weapons will change anything, get a shot gun, with a room that big, 2 or 3 shots and you could cover the whole room, take 4 hand guns, average (civilian) handgun without reloading can hold 10 rounds, thats 40 shots, that can do just as much damage. i see why people are complaining, but nothing would really change, they would just use different weapons. now i know somebody is going to say then get rid of all guns, but many people dont realize how easy it is to get guns without registering (which would become illegal methods at that point), as well as how many guns are already in the system, between how easy it is to get guns into the country, as well as how many are already here (unregistered since many states do not have to register them), all it would do is make it so people who dont obey the law have them since it will still be very easy to get them, or they would get them before the law took effect, or they already have them (and again, same can be said with assault weapons as normal weapons, lots in system, and only people who dont obey the laws will keep them, and will still be easy to get if somebody really wanted one, hell, they aren't even that hard to build, i know how to put one together, not hard, just a few modifications to a normal rifle and you have an assault rifle).

personally i think it would be more productive to make gun classes mandatory so people know the proper conduct for them, cause if it was, the mother probably would not have had left them where Adam had access to them despite him being mentally unwell. the anti-gun advocates are not treating what happened as a tragedy like it was, but instead using it to push their political propaganda to get one step closer to banning guns

Where's the "like" button for this post?

Assault weapons are not meant to be defensive, sure, defensive weapons could be used as offensive, but so could kitchen knives, baseball bats...
My point was the main purpose of a baseball bat is to play baseball, knife use is for meal or vegetables, defensive weapons to self defend...sure these all can be used to assault, but assault weapons main use is to war. That's why I believe these weapons have no reason to be available, unlike defensive weapons. If you say "but they can be used to assault too", I'll remind you about kitchen knives, baseball bats...you cannot ban everything, BUT weapons which main and primary use is obviously attack in warfare.
Let's be realistic. A M16 main use isn't be used to hunt deer or to defend your shop against robbers. It's to use in war.

True, there is a big difference between 'weapons of war' and weapons of defence/hunt. There is also one big similarity, someone fires one at you properly, you die.

I am in agreement with Guerrero's suggestion of mandatory gun classes.
Although, since the majority of shootings occurs by mad men and stressed out lunatics (all formerly good people, of course, but they 'snapped'); I do believe that while the presence of firearms aggravates calamity, the underlying social issues need be addressed simultaneously. You cannot sell robbing people of something that gives them a sense of security (no matter how much of an illusion) without providing them with a 'safe world'. Our world is full of threats, or at least, that is what we all are led to believe (save a few goats among the sheep). The night is dark and full of terror. Basically guns serve the purpose of our parents as a child: "check under the bed, check in the closet, no monsters here, now go to sleep." It stands to reason that when our livelihood is threatened (for instance by unemployment, a government that wobbles in this and that direction, instability all around us, depression) we grasp for something that gives us a sense of security, a sense of 'this is my domain, and I can protect it', because what else can you do in a world that is so out of your control?


Alas, having a gun and depression sometimes leads you to believe that it would be better for everyone if they were not in this world. So you pick up your gun, walk to a school (children, because they still have innocence to be saved) and save the children from this terrible, horrible world full of sexual predators and corporate greed, as a twisted act of mercy. And then you follow them.
Is that not what the lawyers said about some other shooting a while back?

Maybe a very controversial statement, but since the world is depressed and out of control, how about something that gives them hope? How about that famous 'opium for the people', religion? Need a new, universal religion without the aggressiveness of the past, built on the ruins (because both Islam and Christianity are defunct) of history, a dynamic, forward-minded religion without some apocalyptic doomsayery to drive its people mad. Something connecting, something hopeful, something fair and just.
It would never work, people are too **Filtered** up for it, but maybe in a thousand years, if we are still here (doubt it, far more likely we killed us all).. who knows.

Legendary Apophis wrote:Not a mean to assault people as if one was a mercenary. Buying M16 and similar weapons is definitely not accountable as a mean to defend oneself, but as a mean to start a mini war like A-Team would.

M-16s cost $25,000+ and are far and few between. It also takes about 6 months to purchase one and an extra $200 federal tax, plus sales and state taxes. Buying an M-16 is not easy, although it absolutely should be!

As for starting a war, sometimes that's necessary. Do you know when the last successful armed rebellion in America was? It was in August of 1946. Nineteen forty six.

fem fatale wrote:the gun laws are the best thing the Aus Govt ever did.. there has not been one mass killing since it was implemented.

but here are some US stats to mull over
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

The number of gun deaths includes justified homicides(anyone time anyone shoots and kills someone in justified self defense, it's listed as a justified homicide), accidents, murders and suicides. Suicides by far account for the majority of gun deaths. Leaving somewhere around 10,000 actual accidents/unjustified homicides(murders).

There are as many guns as there are cars, if not more. The ratio between people in America and number of guns is close to 1:1. Seems that cars are three times more dangerous than guns. Perhaps we should regulate them into obscurity as well, eh?

Your firearms laws are efing retarded. In response to the university shooting, handguns were limited to .38 caliber or smaller and a maximum capacity of 10. Guess what? The deadliest shooting in America was perpetrated by a man wielding a .22 caliber handgun with a maximum capacity of 10.

Legendary Apophis wrote:I highly approve the stance in the US that against people who try to rob in your house, you are allowed to defend yourself with a gun or other defensive weapon (such as those used by deer hunters for example), same for shop owners to defend themselves and not be seen later as "guilty" by justice.

If it fires lead, it's used by hunters. Hunters regularly use AR-15 platforms.

This is also a naive stance. Charles Whitman, you might better know him as the UT Clocktower shooter, used a WWII era rifle. Here's something else you might not know. Students grabbed their own rifles and returned fire, later to be credited for saving lives by the officers that killed Whitman. The officer also went on to thank them for their efforts, because of their cover fire, they provided the officer the opportunity to corner and kill Whitman. Finally, one last largely unknown fact. The officer deputized two ordinary citizens on the spot and had them accompany him to confront Whitman.

The columbine shooters used illegally acquired pump action shotguns.

The VTech shooter used a .22LR handgun with a maximum capacity of 10.

The Pearl Highschool shooter used a lever action rifle. The Pearl High shooting didn't become the Pearl High and Junior High shooting because an armed principal confronted Woodham before he could continue on to the Junior High. Woodham killed more people than he should have been able to because the principal had to retrieve his sidearm from his pickup, which was a long distance from where he was.

It doesn't matter if the person has a bolt, lever or pump action weapon. It doesn't matter if they have small magazine capacities or hundred round drums. It doesn't matter if the weapon is a semi-automatic or fully automatic. It doesn't take long to insert another magazine, it isn't hard and doesn't take a while to work the action of a pump/lever/bolt action gun.

Sol wrote:Any magazine type (integral, tube etc) would of course make it easy to hunt with but not necessary.

Hunting isn't necessary either. Does your car's top speed exceed the top speed limit? That's not necessary either. I am guessing that you play games. That isn't necessary either. Do you drink alcohol or smoke? Neither of which are necessary. Do you drink sodas or eat sweets? Not necessary. Let's not talk about what is and isn't necessary because I will roast you and eat you for dinner.

Sol wrote:We cannot reason with using it for 'defensive' means like the US can (if you apply for any gun license it will be rejected if you use that for reasoning), and they're restricted because they're easily concealed. I suspect there would be outcry in the US if handguns were restricted as well since, I take it, woman would opt for them and to be be honest if you want to defend yourself against an attacker a handgun would be far easier to hide and obtain.

Handguns are more expensive and troublesome to obtain than rifles. The cheaper, quality, handguns average at around $450+. My gun costs $650. Arguably you can buy handguns much cheaper. But you can also buy medicine in Mexico cheaper than in the US. Doesn't mean it's a smart move. But I digress. Rifles and shotguns tend to average around $150+, depending on what you get.

Handguns are best for everyday carry no matter whether you're a woman or a man. No one wants to lug around a 30lbs rifle. And handguns have the added benefit of retention holsters. A retention holster is a holster designed to prevent anyone that isn't the carrier from removing the weapon from the holster, of course there too is the fact that they cover the trigger, preventing it from catching on something and accidentally going off.

Sol wrote:Bullets are limited as well, there is a maximum you can buy (this doesn't phase me really, the maximum set here is quite high, I can probably stock up for maybe a year, just for myself).

What is your idea of quite high? I can easily spend a thousand rounds at the range in a very short time.

Back when I lived in Bastrop, my friends and I would go through about 500 rounds in 30 minutes. We didn't shoot anymore cause I couldn't afford it.

Guild wrote:at least stop selling assault rifles

1. assault rifles are no longer produced for the civilian market in America.
2. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
3. Assault rifles cost more than a damn car.
4. It takes upwards of 6 months or more to purchase an AR.
5. Buying an AR requires a mountain of paperwork.
6. To buy an AR, you must first acquire the signature of the Sheriff.

Guild wrote:or large capacity mags

The VTech massacre was perpetrated by a man using a mag with a capacity of 10 rounds.

Guild wrote:there is no sense or reason to having any need for that much ammo

Don't get me started on what is necessary and what isn't.

Legendary Apophis wrote:Assault weapons are not meant to be defensive, sure, defensive weapons could be used as offensive, but so could kitchen knives, baseball bats...

There is no such thing as assault weapons. But let's look at a couple instances where weapons labeled falsely as assault weapons have been used successfully in self defense.

Koreans vs looters: LA Riots


Black Panther Party, protecting civil rights protesters.

Juliette wrote:(all formerly good people, of course, but they 'snapped')

People don't just snap. It may appear that way to the casual observer, but that's the problem with casual observation. It only tells you what's on the surface, not what's beneath it.

Dovahkiin wrote:

Juliette wrote:(all formerly good people, of course, but they 'snapped')

People don't just snap. It may appear that way to the casual observer, but that's the problem with casual observation. It only tells you what's on the surface, not what's beneath it.

Hence the rest of what I said, mister smartypants.

Now, you say there is no such thing as an Assault Rifle. Tell me then, is there no such thing as cars either? Explain yourself. Saying "x does not exist" while entire laws are made based on the idea that x does, in fact, exist is pretty bold. Elaborate and teach us.


Regarding the 'Battle of Athens', great story, and a victory for democracy, love it! Could never happen today though.