Poll: Should guns be legal for civilians to own?
No, none whatsoever
Hunting rifles only
All guns according to current US laws
All guns, full auto included
[Show Results]
 
Firearms?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2011, 09:04 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2011 09:08 AM by morondog.)
RE: Firearms?
Idaho: The possession of automatic firearms is permitted, as long such possession is in compliance with all federal regulations.

A concealed weapon may not be carried at a school or at a school sponsored activity, in a courthouse, in a prison or detention facility, or in certain other governmentally designated locations.

So that's alright then Smile

Indiana: Short barreled shotguns (barrels under 18", OAL less than 26" length), are prohibited to the general citizenry (some exceptions apply). Possession of automatic weapons by individuals or dealers who have obtained the appropriate federal license is permitted. It appears that all other NFA-regulated weapons and devices are legal in Indiana

Minnesota: Persons under the age of 21 prohibited from purchasing semi-automatic handguns and other "military style" weapons. However, ownership of "assault weapons" by persons over 18 generally not prohibited.

Edit: Also all from the aforementioned wikipedia page.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2011 09:47 AM by Azaraith.)
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 09:04 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 08:44 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  You forget hunting, target practice (a sport and hobby in itself for many) and self defense (the least common in actual use).

I did not forget hunting. It involves destroying life (I am a vegetarian, firmly against killing of any kind, for fun or convenience).

Target practice I have no problem with, as long as it is done with guns/rifles BOLTED/CHAINED to the benches at the gun club and people can't take them away.

Self defense with a gun is not very practical -- usually the defender gets killed with his/her own gun. Never mind the countless accidents that happen with guns kept at home for the purpose of self defense. Intelligent precaution, good security system and proper safety practices are far superior to having a gun tossed into some drawer out of reach when an intruder surprises you.

Not everyone is a vegetarian, most aren't. For them, hunting is an acceptable use. I don't see a human hunting a deer as any more wrong/immoral than a lion killing a gazelle. (Actually, it's far more humane - just watch a video of a lion kill, or worse, a hyena). BTW, plants are alive too. Strictly speaking, if you are against harming all/any life, you'll have to off yourself. Antibiotics, plants, animals - you're killing something if you're alive & not starving/dying of disease. Going to a ridiculous extreme, I'll admit, but the line is being drawn somewhere re: killing life. How you draw it is up to you though, doesn't affect me.

Target practice with range-guns only, bolted down, wouldn't fly - you wouldn't believe how much money and effort people put into their target rifles to get a little more accurate than their competition. Ranges wouldn't be able to do that and keep them all in shape (range guns get all beat up). I'm talking $10,000 for a target rifle that shoots well below MOA groups at 1,000 yards. The people who actually engage in target practice would simply laugh at that suggestion and fight against it tooth and nail if anyone tried to actually put it in place.

Self-defense, I agree. The idea is sound on a very superficial level (I want max ability to defend myself), but if you take into account the conditions most likely in a home invasion situation, it's going to be dark, difficult to see, and you are going to be at your least alert/clear of mind state. In that case, a bat or some non-lethal defense weapon would be better. Community involvement, watching out for each other is preferable.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Azaraith's post
04-11-2011, 10:48 AM
 
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 09:44 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Not everyone is a vegetarian, most aren't. For them, hunting is an acceptable use.

I would venture to say that most hunters do it for the fun, not because they need the food (most natives and aboriginals excepted).

I already said on the "Spaceship TTA" thread that I can live with hunting for individual consumption, except in cases when buying and maintaining the equipment, ammunition, cloths and other 'necessary' stuff, plus the cost of the hunting trip (gasoline, etc), costs way more than buying meat would cost them. Very few people hunt for food to avoid contribution to the meat industry (which is far more cruel than hunting), they simply do it for the fun of killing. I know that there are exceptions, like farmers, for example, but I think you get my point.

Quote:Target practice with range-guns only, bolted down, wouldn't fly - you wouldn't believe how much money and effort people put into their target rifles to get a little more accurate than their competition. Ranges wouldn't be able to do that and keep them all in shape (range guns get all beat up). I'm talking $10,000 for a target rifle .

I personally think that a lot of good could be done with $10,000 -- but it is not my place to tell people how to spend their money. I think target practice sport could be done a lot more efficiently with ray guns and electronics -- the sound, the recoil and even the holes in the target could be reproduced by technology -- but not the thrill of actually knowing that I could have killed with this weapon I just fired.

Finally, for the long range thinkers, I firmly believe that existing technology could be improved to the point where industry could synthesize meat, so we would not need to maintain the unbelievably cruel livestock/agri business that fills the supermarkets now with animal 'products'. I already posted a long list of meat substitutes, freely available on the supermarkets to everyone -- on the "Spaceship TTA" thread.

If our species has billions to spend on killing each other than, maybe, we could spend a few million on not killing everything else.

Angry

ETA:

As far as passing laws and prohibiting firearms is concerned, I agree with Stark -- it is a waste of money. Now if they passed a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of guns and ammunition and destroying any the police could lay their hands on, that would be more effective.

However, nothing would be effective long enough with our fucked-up species, sooner or later, we would find new ways of killing each other and any other life form unfortunate enough to share the same planet with us.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
04-11-2011, 11:34 AM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 10:48 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 09:44 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Not everyone is a vegetarian, most aren't. For them, hunting is an acceptable use.

I would venture to say that most hunters do it for the fun, not because they need the food (most natives and aboriginals excepted).

I already said on the "Spaceship TTA" thread that I can live with hunting for individual consumption, except in cases when buying and maintaining the equipment, ammunition, cloths and other 'necessary' stuff, plus the cost of the hunting trip (gasoline, etc), costs way more than buying meat would cost them. Very few people hunt for food to avoid contribution to the meat industry (which is far more cruel than hunting), they simply do it for the fun of killing. I know that there are exceptions, like farmers, for example, but I think you get my point.

Venison and other game meat is hard to get in stores - and what you can get comes from hunters (no deer farms, boar farms, etc afaik). The taste is very different and very good. Don't expect you'll understand as a vegetarian, but the taste is different and people like it. Most hunters (not the scumbags) use the meat and skin, they don't just shoot the animal and leave it to rot.


Quote:Target practice with range-guns only, bolted down, wouldn't fly - you wouldn't believe how much money and effort people put into their target rifles to get a little more accurate than their competition. Ranges wouldn't be able to do that and keep them all in shape (range guns get all beat up). I'm talking $10,000 for a target rifle .

I personally think that a lot of good could be done with $10,000 -- but it is not my place to tell people how to spend their money. I think target practice sport could be done a lot more efficiently with ray guns and electronics -- the sound, the recoil and even the holes in the target could be reproduced by technology -- but not the thrill of actually knowing that I could have killed with this weapon I just fired.

If you're complaining about the $ spent, that's a universal thing with hobbies - how much do people spend on golf clubs, video games, TV/entertainment systems, collectible items (coins, stamps, etc) and so on?

As far as simulating it goes, it already exists and people don't typically like it for anything but kids and state fairs (pneumatic rifles chained down for target practice are common items at state fairs, at least they were when I was a kid). If you really think ray guns or such would be a suitable simulation, you don't understand the mechanics of the sport.

Ray guns are 100% accurate and always hit point of aim. That takes much of the skill out of it. Real guns shoot groups - individual shots will vary in where they hit, as well as differ slightly from point of aim. They are also affected by gravity, wind, humidity, etc. Even the coriolis effect comes into play at very, very long distances. The skill is in accounting for the conditions and keeping the groups small and on target. A ray gun would be absolutely boring to these folks. They spend hours jabbering about how using x powder load with a bullet weight of y shaped like z will be more/less accurate at a certain range with certain conditions... Ray guns would be derided as video games... Anything that properly simulated the mechanics and difficulty of target shooting with real guns would be just as dangerous. Computer simulations would be far too limited in their options of what you can do to modify accuracy in order for these folks to be happy with them.


Finally, for the long range thinkers, I firmly believe that existing technology could be improved to the point where industry could synthesize meat, so we would not need to maintain the unbelievably cruel livestock/agri business that fills the supermarkets now with animal 'products'. I already posted a long list of meat substitutes, freely available on the supermarkets to everyone -- on the "Spaceship TTA" thread.

Perhaps, but just imagine the difficulty convincing people to buy it. GMO food is already resisted by many in Europe and the US and it's not lab-faked food, it's just genetically modified real food. I've also tried a few meat substitutes, but none were as good or better than the real deal. Let me know when you find one that passes a blind taste test and comes out ahead of the real deal (at same price point and relative quality - no McD's hamburger meat vs. primo substitute at 10x cost).

If our species has billions to spend on killing each other than, maybe, we could spend a few million on not killing everything else.

Already happens, see all producers of vegetarian foods focused on being meat substitutes. Small market (relatively), so the same amount of $ isn't going to be spent.


Angry

ETA:

As far as passing laws and prohibiting firearms is concerned, I agree with Stark -- it is a waste of money. Now if they passed a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of guns and ammunition and destroying any the police could lay their hands on, that would be more effective.

It is very easy to make your own gun out of readily available materials. Illegal, but criminals don't care. It would take me literally 2-3 hours to put one together that would be able to kill at 50-75 yards. Gunpowder and other explosive substitutes wouldn't be a problem either - even hairspray can do in a pinch (Google spud gun - one guy built one that could launch trailer hitches).[/b]

However, nothing would be effective long enough with our fucked-up species, sooner or later, we would find new ways of killing each other and any other life form unfortunate enough to share the same planet with us.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 11:40 AM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 10:48 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  I would venture to say that most hunters do it for the fun, not because they need the food (most natives and aboriginals excepted).
It's not soooo bad I don't think, even if it is for fun. Also because humans have affected ecology *everywhere*, if hunters did not manage large wild-life reserves there'd be some catastrophic population boom and busts - from for example, a lack of predators. Culling is essential in most reserves, as far as I know, and hunting with licenses enables the reserves to make money off it and do proper conservation at the same time.

Quote:If our species has billions to spend on killing each other than, maybe, we could spend a few million on not killing everything else.

However, nothing would be effective long enough with our fucked-up species, sooner or later, we would find new ways of killing each other and any other life form unfortunate enough to share the same planet with us.

Yeah, you got that right Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
04-11-2011, 11:54 AM
RE: Firearms?
I see no inherent correlation between belief in god and owning firearms. I grew up in a country with exceptionally strict gun laws, and the only result is that all the crooks have them, and all the law abiding people don't. I have also been in the situation of living alone in a quiet area, and worrying about what I would do if somebody tried to break into my house, and the feeling was not good. So as soon as I moved to the US, one of the very first things I did was learn to use a firearm and then buy a few. Maybe it's useless for self defense, maybe not, but I certainly feel a lot better knowing I have them. If something happens and I have a gun, I may get to it in time and save myself or not. If on the other hand I don't have one at all, I don't even have that possibility. BTW yes I do believe I am morally justified in shooting a criminal that breaks into my house. I have been in the situation of physically fighting an attacker and I believe I saved myself because I had a switchblade knife with me at the time, so before any of you thinks of giving me the "weapons don't protect you" argument, don't even go there, because I know they do for a fact.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sy2502's post
04-11-2011, 12:19 PM
 
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 11:34 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Venison and other game meat is hard to get in stores - and what you can get comes from hunters (no deer farms, boar farms, etc afaik). The taste is very different and very good. Don't expect you'll understand as a vegetarian, but the taste is different and people like it.

Everything, in real life, is a tradeoff.

The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

The exotic taste of a dead animal on one hand -- the wasted resources, and the primitiveness of enjoying the hunt on the other.

The short-sighted convenience on one hand -- the long range vision, befitting a species with science and technology, on the other.

I am not saying that there is a solution at the moment. I am questioning the complacency with which we dismiss the issue of manufacturing, selling, buying, even worshiping (damn near in the USA), gadgets that serve only one purpose: destroying life. And our justifications are such decadent and flimsy whims, like the special taste of venison, the thrill of the sport and the hunt, the good feeling that comes from owning a gun, even if it is probably useless in self defense.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
04-11-2011, 12:33 PM
RE: Firearms?
Guns dont kill people..........rappers do.
I saw it on a documentary on bbc2 ha ha





I think they should outlaw all guns TBH. Simply because they are instruments of death and destruction........they serve no other purpose.

However I do feel sorry for all the responsible people out there who own guns and who have never probably fired one outside of a range.........or people like Stark who use them as a tool.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 12:49 PM
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 12:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Everything, in real life, is a tradeoff.

The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

False dichotomy.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2011, 01:15 PM
 
RE: Firearms?
(04-11-2011 12:49 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 12:19 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Everything, in real life, is a tradeoff.

The thrill of a sport on one had -- gun violence on the other.

False dichotomy.

No, it isn't.

Take the long-term view, not the short-term given.

If we, as a species, had our priorities right, then we would focus on SUBSTITUTE SOLUTIONS to our interests/values/whims, instead of the easy/primitive/historically inherited ones.

Instead of manufacturing, selling and maintaining killing machines, we could find INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS to our need of food/clothing/medicine/thrill and whatever else we use and exploit other living things for, often undescribably inhumanely.

And I have not even mentioned, in this rant, killing each other by design or by accident.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: