Funk, E wrote:Oh, I know. Hey, I'm from Vermont, we've got really lax gun laws and extraordinarily low homicide rates. Do you seriously plan to overthrow the government with handguns? Are you part of some kind of militia?
And Vermont has a lower population per mile than an inner city place like here in phoenix, where I can tell you that gun deaths are a big problem. And the largest percentage are with hand guns. I've had tons of friends be held up at gunpoint, and these definately aren't store bought. So even making it harder for people to buy them legally doesn't mean people wont have them available. Plus Arizona has a standing wild west law that allows you to carry firearm's without a permit if they are in plain sight. Personally i think people should have the right, but you need regulation in densly populated areas.
I know there are many liberals who do not support the 2nd Amendment, but I am not one of them. My rationale is a very simple one: It's in the Constitution. End of story. Now, there are some reasonable limits that I think should be considered, in the same way you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and claim 1st Amendment rights. I also think the situation is different in big cities and most other places. In a lot of those places, the cops are begging for stricter handgun laws. I'm inclined to give the cops the tools they need, but I also firmly believe that no one has anything to fear from law-abiding people having guns, even conceal and carry. In fact, we'd have less to fear.
I just really think this is an issue liberals need to drop.
ott0bot wrote:wasn't this about the presidential election....
Oh yeah... I guess when it comes down to it, guns are more fun to talk about than Presidents.
And Funk, E - I don't believe any of us have any intention to overthrow the government with handguns. We're simply retro gamers with an affinity for fine firearms.
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most."
RadarScope1 wrote:I know there are many liberals who do not support the 2nd Amendment, but I am not one of them. My rationale is a very simple one: It's in the Constitution. End of story. Now, there are some reasonable limits that I think should be considered, in the same way you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and claim 1st Amendment rights. I also think the situation is different in big cities and most other places. In a lot of those places, the cops are begging for stricter handgun laws. I'm inclined to give the cops the tools they need, but I also firmly believe that no one has anything to fear from law-abiding people having guns, even conceal and carry. In fact, we'd have less to fear.
I just really think this is an issue liberals need to drop.
But thats not going to happen. Many liberals live in inner city and high crime areas and gun violence is a part of life they don't want to see destroy there neighborhoods. so they can't just drop it. What's the solution? A gun is a tool and it's really more about the poeple that are the problem. But guns make it easier for cowards to commit crime, but as I said most of these guns are bought illegally and aren't regisered. So do you make the penalty higher for owning illegal firearms? Do you ban the guns? DO you put checkpoints around the block? It's tought to solving without stepping on someones rights. This is the problem they face, maybe you don't so you don't understand what the problem is. I grew up in rural Nebraska and had similar viewpoints when I was younger, but when I gtr out and saw the world this is one area I always thought needed to be addressed. I don't have the solution, but this is why us "liberals" wont drop it. Not trying to be inflamitory, but it ain't an easy fix.
For the record, the handguns of choice for crimes are usually .22 caliber, as the weapons and ammunition are significantly cheaper than most anything on the market.
Personally, I don't think handgun bans are the answer(in fact, quite the opposite). Look at Washington DC, a city that banned handguns in the 1970s yet suffered from a large amount of crime(including crimes involving illegal firearms). The general belief is, if a populace is allowed firearms for protection purposes, it will make criminals more hesitant to commit crimes because they will fear that their potential victim will have a firearm, and thus be able to defend themselves. Take away the weapons, and criminals will have less reason to fear the people they prey upon. Also, the vast majority of gun owners do not commit violent crimes and have no intention to. They are perfectly normal law-abiding citizens with the exact same outlook as everybody else.
As an aside, I would like to state that anyone who owns a firearm should be properly trained in its use and maintenance. While in general I am opposed to strict gun laws, the thought of mandatory training and proficiency courses in firearms after their purchase does not bother me so much, though I would stress that this would hinder collectors. I would not want a training course with a Liberator, after all.
As for the purpose of a pistol or sidearm, I would say A) personal protection, as they are generally easier to hide than a shotgun or rifle, considerably less weight, and not nearly as bulky. Also, depending on the caliber, the ammunition is generally cheaper. B) Hunting purposes. Pistol hunters are generally after small game, such as rabbit. C) If the people of America were to ever revolt(I know, unlikely), it's a good idea for a backup weapon once whatever else you're using is out of ammunition.
In general pistols are meant for close range, say between 10 and 30 feet. Anything less than 10 feet and you're better off fighting with your hands, as it's unlikely you can draw your weapon and fire before your attacker is on you. Anything more than 30 feet and you likely won't fare well with your accuracy. Sure, you can train and target shoot for further away, but it's a different situation when someone is coming after you. There is a certain degree of panic that should be considered, as most people abhor the thought of hurting or killing another human being, but are also scared that they will be hurt(hence why I think training in a firearm should be required).
Ack wrote:As an aside, I would like to state that anyone who owns a firearm should be properly trained in its use and maintenance. While in general I am opposed to strict gun laws, the thought of mandatory training and proficiency courses in firearms after their purchase does not bother me so much, though I would stress that this would hinder collectors. I would not want a training course with a Liberator, after all.
I'll agree here. You need to pass a test in order to be able to legally drive a car. But the criterea for getting a gun is that you don't have a record of shivving people at the ATM. Why not impliment some kind of license program, similar to the driver's license? Or more stringent, similar to the pilot's license, where you need proof of training.
If we can get this ball rolling, maybe we can get to the point of requiring a baby license. But that's a rant for another day.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:And being such retro gamers, we would be prepared if the president was ever captured by ninjas. We have first hand experience with such a task.
Sig'd.
Hatta wrote:Die Hard Arcade has Deep Scan in it. That's like retro inside retro. They must have heard we liked retro (dawg).
Jrecee wrote:What I like to do is knit little sweaters to put on the games.
Maybe "drop" was too strong a word. Clearly it's a pretty big problem in many areas and it's complex, as you said.
But I agree with Obama when he says the Republicans often make big elections about small things. This is a wedge issue where I think there's a lot of common ground.
By the same token, people on the right need to back off, too. They hyperventilate and act someone's coming around with a dump truck to take all the guns to a giant smelter.
