Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do Girls Need Guns?

Page 3 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

16 Sep 2010, 4:23 pm

LKL wrote:
Personally, I am put off by the noise (and the potential mess).


Well, this can solve half your problem...

Image

I shot one in a guy's backyard in Colorado, its a little less loud than a BB gun...


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

16 Sep 2010, 4:45 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
No one apart from people who actually need guns (e.g. policeman) should own them.

Policemen arrive at the scene of a violent crime in time to call for an ambulance (or coroner) and take a report, so guns only in the hands of policemen isn't effective for personal safety. The supreme court case Warren vs. D.C. ruled that police don't even have a legal responsibility to protect an individual.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

16 Sep 2010, 4:50 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
No one apart from people who actually need guns (e.g. policeman) should own them.

Policemen arrive at the scene of a violent crime in time to call for an ambulance (or coroner) and take a report, so guns only in the hands of policemen isn't effective for personal safety. The supreme court case Warren vs. D.C. ruled that police don't even have a legal responsibility to protect an individual.


Exactly.



Werecrocodile
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 204

16 Sep 2010, 10:59 pm

Guns are lame, it would be better if people fought with swords again.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

16 Sep 2010, 11:43 pm

Werecrocodile wrote:
Guns are lame, it would be better if people fought with swords again.


I actually used to think the same way, guns seemed too easy compared to medieval weaponry, but upon reflection I reconsidered. Probably the biggest thing is that older weapons required physical strength and years of training to use effectively, necessitating a professional warrior class that was not so good for the common folk during times of peace. Guns are much more egalitarian, there are few physical requirements to shooting well and superior strength doesn't count for much. People that used to be easy prey for physically tougher individuals such as women, the infirm and the elderly can now easily wield lethal force against them, making the decision to initiate aggression a much tougher choice. In other words, going back to blades might seem like a cool idea, but it really falls apart under a bit of scrutiny.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

16 Sep 2010, 11:54 pm

Werecrocodile wrote:
Guns are lame, it would be better if people fought with swords again.

Then young, strong men would face no effective resistance from smaller, weaker women. Back to the good old days of rape and pillage as commplace occurrances.

Dox is right: guns are egalitarian, and egalitarianism is a good thing.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Sep 2010, 3:01 am

John_Browning wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
No one apart from people who actually need guns (e.g. policeman) should own them.

Policemen arrive at the scene of a violent crime in time to call for an ambulance (or coroner) and take a report, so guns only in the hands of policemen isn't effective for personal safety. The supreme court case Warren vs. D.C. ruled that police don't even have a legal responsibility to protect an individual.


When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Sep 2010, 3:07 pm

Dox47 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Personally, I am put off by the noise (and the potential mess).


Well, this can solve half your problem...

Image

I shot one in a guy's backyard in Colorado, its a little less loud than a BB gun...


Is it legal?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

17 Sep 2010, 4:01 pm

LKL wrote:
Is it legal?


Depends on where you live, laws vary state to state but you're always going to have to fill out some federal paperwork. My state has a particularly strange interpretation, you can own a suppressed firearm, but you're not allowed to shoot it. Now since we are talking about a silencer the real question is "how would they know?", but that's government for you. Now the UK is extra weird, there it's nearly impossible to get a license for a gun, but if you do manage it very easy to acquire a silencer. I've heard that it has something to do with their liability laws, like the government could be liable for hearing damage from lout shots if they didn't allow silencers. Odd, huh?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Sep 2010, 4:13 pm

yes, indeed.
looks like it's not legal in California:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12500.php

I guess I'll just have to continue relying on my awesome martial arts prowess (j/k) and my large dog.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

17 Sep 2010, 4:25 pm

Heh, or verbally maul 'em to death. Either way you ought to be able to come out a winner.



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

17 Sep 2010, 5:00 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Werecrocodile wrote:
Guns are lame, it would be better if people fought with swords again.


I actually used to think the same way, guns seemed too easy compared to medieval weaponry, but upon reflection I reconsidered. Probably the biggest thing is that older weapons required physical strength and years of training to use effectively, necessitating a professional warrior class that was not so good for the common folk during times of peace. Guns are much more egalitarian, there are few physical requirements to shooting well and superior strength doesn't count for much. People that used to be easy prey for physically tougher individuals such as women, the infirm and the elderly can now easily wield lethal force against them, making the decision to initiate aggression a much tougher choice. In other words, going back to blades might seem like a cool idea, but it really falls apart under a bit of scrutiny.

Well, this can solve half of his problem...

Image
:P