Written by akatana on 13.01.2009 at 08:28

Written by giok99 on 12.01.2009 at 23:21

I vote no, but ...

I'm Swiss and i live in Switzerland, a Small country in the middle of Europa.

Here, every men go the army (almost) and receive a nice gun ( a SIG, almost a automatic weapon, 20 bullets, kill a man at 300 m). And at the end of their service, every men keep his gun at HOME. I had a gun at home for 12 years and well...

3-4 times a year, you can hear that someone fire with his personnal gun, and 1-2 times, kill some one.

But you can read almost every day (around 100-150 a year) that one commited sucide with his personnal gun.

when I was living in switzerland, there was talk about changing the law to prevent this, because keeping guns at home was just useful in ww2. Did they do anything?

Things are going to change but slowly. Some County offer place to keep the guns between services, but it's optional.

Gourvement still talking about a law, but, here, in Switzerland, things change very slowly. But when it changes, it's because everybody agree with the change.

Do we need guns? In a way I think so, so I voted yes, but I've seen a troubling line of thinking around where I live.

Some people in the US are just crazy. I have no experience with other countries, but people here will just shoot you for accidental trespassing and such... For instance, I was visiting my neighbor last summer. Come nighttime, I left without mentioning to get something out of my car, and when someone saw me walking by the window everyone got scared and before I knew it I had a gun pointed at my face. He almost shot me. Seriously...I just think people need to grow up a little bit.

My biggest problem is that the majority of the gun pushers here in the States, including my trigger-happy neighbor, are devout Christians who desire to protect their families, which is a complete disgrace to what the religion teaches. I have had problems with the wrong side of gun crime before, as my dad has a social job that happens to make lots of public enemies. We don't own guns, simply because we never plan on using one, for self defense or otherwise. Being Christian, we prefer to employ the dogma of loving our enemies, turning the other cheek, etc. Well, at one point we had an armed break-in, in which someone had intentions to kill my father with the use of a gun. What did we do? We behaved like decent human beings, and offered our lives, sympathy, and advice. This put quite the impression on the attacker, who after a long and terrifying exchange, fled. The fact that we lived through the ordeal is completely irrelevant, the point is that we respected the demands of our religion...I have no problem with the secular logic of gun control and prohibition, I just wish the Christians in my side of the country would find a better excuse than their 'God given' rights of self defense.

But that's all just a personal grudge of mine, which doesn't really boil down to much credit anyway. I just thought I'd share my experience with Christian gun-enthusiasm, living in a very rural area. At the heart of the matter, I believe guns will always be around, whether carefully distributed, banned or otherwise. With that opinion in mind, I think it's only fitting to attempt to keep the gun owning population on the government's side to monitor and control...until we become a brutal police state that sacrifices each and every one of our freedoms for peace, security, and an unfair economy. ....

The problem is that many people are pushed around in their schools, jobs, homes, and their parents and teachers just say that they must ignore it, or even that it is their fault. If someone is pushed around enough on school, when kids threw dirt over them, stole their schoolbooks and made them beg to get it back and they are totally humiliated, while their teachers where standing and watching it, but not doing anything, and the parents didn't help, if someone like that graps a gun, hell breaks loose. It is just an universal law, when there are no clear rules or the rules are not maintained well and the rights of the strongest start to count (evolutionism) hell will break loose eventually. And from the sight of those who killed so many on columbine high it wasn't even wrong what they did. If they wouldn't have been able to use guns, they would have used only bobms and knifes. The result would be the same.

@bard: I do agree with you. Maybe armed people even get killed easier for they will easily be agressive.

Written by Guest on 30.01.2009 at 13:28

The problem is that many people are pushed around in their schools, jobs, homes, and their parents and teachers just say that they must ignore it, or even that it is their fault. If someone is pushed around enough on school, when kids threw dirt over them, stole their schoolbooks and made them beg to get it back and they are totally humiliated, while their teachers where standing and watching it, but not doing anything, and the parents didn't help, if someone like that graps a gun, hell breaks loose. It is just an universal law, when there are no clear rules or the rules are not maintained well and the rights of the strongest start to count (evolutionism) hell will break loose eventually. And from the sight of those who killed so many on columbine high it wasn't even wrong what they did. If they wouldn't have been able to use guns, they would have used only bobms and knifes. The result would be the same.

@bard: I do agree with you. Maybe armed people even get killed easier for they will easily be agressive.

That is very true. The very presence of the gun offers something to always fall back on--your last line of defense is very clearly identified and gives you an advantage over all those who do not carry a gun. Just that gun being there psychologically makes you more likely to aggressively engage with someone, especially in anonymous situations, where people often show their ugly sides (the road, the internet, etc.). For example, motorists who carry guns are more likely to get their road rage on...that or angry drivers are more likely to carry guns than passive people.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925373.800-guntoting-motorists-more-prone-to-road-rage.html

Of course we do not need guns.
Why are they invented? To kill. For no other reason.

A common question in this thread seems to be wether it is the person or the gun that kills people.
But what other function than killing does a gun really have?
You don't own a gun just for fun. In the end a gun will always end up being used.

So in the end it is of course the person who kills, but the gun became the catalyst.
All you need to do is pull the trigger.

Do we "need" guns. that is your specific question. Let me answer this in 2 levels. /the micro and the macro. On the micro, no. We need food, water, etc. guns are just a tool man uses for several things. On a macro level it may also depend on other things but I would argue that guns are necessary. If guns did not exist man would find other forms or intimidation. There are men in this world who are parasites and need violence for their cause.
You can confiscate guns and make them illegal but that does not remove all guns. It only removes the guns from people whom already for the most part obey the law and register them. As in Germany in the 1920s. Look i agree there may be examples for and against each arguement.
in the Sudan maybe the refugees would want guns. Maybe in other places people may not want them for defense.

I would not give up my guns for quote, unquote less crime. we have cities here in the U.S. where places with strict gun laws lead to more crime and places where loose gun laws lead to lower crime. Some of this depends on the moral fabric of the community and the passiveness of the masses.

Look to rid humanity of guns seems noble, but it aint gonna happen. We must live in the real world where reality is king. bad guys do not obey the law even in totalitarian countries.

Yeah I guess you're right. It will never disappear completely.
But then again, they are sold in public in the US, which kind of bothers me.
It's not like it's really banned here in the Netherlands, I'm not sure. But it's not easy to get a gun.
I don't really have experience with really trying to get a gun, maybe it's easier than I think though.
Maybe it has more to do with fear than with the ability to kill someone...

Some crazy shit is happening in aus, theres these ppl who wanna ban guns from everyone, even farmers, but th thing is that those ppl who go on drive-by shootings don't get there guns legally, while th farmers suffer th conciquenses. it's just stupid

I voted yes, and my opinions are rather simple.

I agree with the constitutional right to bear arms. I do not agree with people killing people for no reason, but let's look at examples where guns have been useful with a more positive outcome?

Say you are driving at night, and you stop at a red light. A man approaches with a knife and attempts to get you to leave your vehicle. You pull your handgun out from underneath your car. I doubt that potential carjacker will want to pursue you with his little knife.

Say you are at home, sleeping in your bed. You hear your front door open, and someone comes inside and starts to take your belongings. You wake, pull out the shotgun you had in your closet, and take control of the situation.

Again, I'm not insisting that killing is OK, but it is definitely a necessity in securing your personal property as well as self defense. It is a shame that it can be used as a lethal instrument when there isn't a cause, but it can also be the definitive resource in saving your own hide.

I have two argument's to make here. Guns are important and are a necessary evil in society. In saying it should not be up to any individual to bare arms, as it says in the USA constitution. That is a backward 18th century ideal and in modern society it fails miserably hence why there are more murders in the USA than any other Western Country except South Africa. On the other hand, on a national level guns are a necessity. It has already been proven in the past what happens to countries who do not bear arms... uhm (Tibet). While in no way do I condone the Chinese government for their actions in Tibet, if they at least had some form of defense than they Chinese government of the day may have reconsidered. While there are no guarantees there, I also believe that with the invention of the Nuclear Bomb, the world has avoid dozens of wars, and it is because of the fear of retribution that the Cold War never escalated into direct conflict.

So to sum up
1- Individuals should not take it upon themselves to bare arms and nor should they have a constitutional right to do so.
2- Armed forces are a necessity at a national level for every country in the world due to a difference in ideology, culture and religions. The main reason for this necessity is the fact that there has been no effective world governing body capable of resolving conflicts between nations or internally, such as a police for monitors a suburb. In saying that, it should not be up to any individual county to police any other county like a big brother watching over his siblings.

Written by LeChron James on 05.09.2008 at 21:46

Written by Guest on 27.08.2008 at 07:00

So, I vote yes. They level the playing field in a world that isn't playing fair.

took the words outta my mouth. word for word.

Lemme third that.

I'm disturbed by the fact that it's okay to carry a concealed firearm if you have a liscense but I can't wear my machete while sheathed?

aside from the comedy, i think he has a point and bullet control could be a good solution. still have control over the gun control, license and that stuff, but also controlling the bullets would actually be good

I jumped into the serious mode in life, where I actually care about thing... waaayy too late. This thread as well!

I'm astonished how many people voted ''yes'', seeing as how the question was actually ''do we NEED guns'', not if we want them. We really don't need weapons to solve our problems, but it's not like there will be a day when everyone turns in there weapons worldwide and shake hands. That would be too good.

We need no weapons, but it will take time before something of that level is comprehended to the same degreee by billions of people.

Late last night I saw a program here talking about safety mechanisms on weapons, pretty futuristic stuff! Perhaps we will never be rid of our weapons, but we might find ways to make them THIS safe if not more safe.

One of them was literally owner operated. When it is in his hand, it showed a cool green light at the front of the weapon, immediately when someone else's hand touches it, the light turns red and the weapon no longer functions. Of course, someone might hold their hand on your hand or something, but this is a good start.

Another device would be stuck in the barrel and locked. There is a control stick the owner keeps to himself to unlock the device and take it out of the barrel. Only his fingerprint will remove it.

Far-out, man.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 16.06.2009 at 16:07

Late last night I saw a program here talking about safety mechanisms on weapons, pretty futuristic stuff! Perhaps we will never be rid of our weapons, but we might find ways to make them THIS safe if not more safe.

One of them was literally owner operated. When it is in his hand, it showed a cool green light at the front of the weapon, immediately when someone else's hand touches it, the light turns red and the weapon no longer functions. Of course, someone might hold their hand on your hand or something, but this is a good start.

Another device would be stuck in the barrel and locked. There is a control stick the owner keeps to himself to unlock the device and take it out of the barrel. Only his fingerprint will remove it.

Far-out, man.

yeah, this was in a movie i saw just yesterday, Shoot Em Up, pretty kickass spoof of Bruce Willis-style action movies

but in the movie the guy just rips out the gun owner's hand and shoots another guy with it... after that he laconically remarks "nothing like a good handjob" lol

We whould not need guns if no one had. i voted for "no" cause they do not need to exist. but sadly we need now guns cause out there is a war...

Do we as a species need guns? Of course not. It's entirely possible to live and reproduce without them. In some cases its easier to have them around (hunting comes to mind) but we certainly don't (or shouldn't) need them.

I know that you say that we need guns in self-defense, which I agree with, but there are always going to be people who don't use guns for the same reasons, and they need to be stopped, plain and simple.

Written by bloodwrage on 14.08.2009 at 04:34

I know that you say that we need guns in self-defense, which I agree with, but there are always going to be people who don't use guns for the same reasons, and they need to be stopped, plain and simple.

Not just self-defense. Guns are used in sport too. Same as archery. People DID kill each other with bows and arrows few centuries ago, but you will hardly see that these days, right? Guns could be limited to such kind of use, but only if it violence wasn't part of human nature. Guns or no guns, people will kill each other, dont blame the tool, but the cause.

I voted YES! I am a proud gun owner and I have a gun permit.

It does not matter what kind of gun laws are in place because I hate to say this but the law only affects those who abide by it.

I also agree with Stalker above me. It's not the gun that's bad, but the user who uses it for the wrong purpose. I will forever own a gun because if someone breaks into my place with the intent to kill, well guess what? I will kill him first, plain and simple.

On a side note, I also shoot for sport. I enjoy shooting, it is alot of fun!

Written by MetallicA on 19.09.2009 at 23:02

I will forever own a gun because if someone breaks into my place with the intent to kill, well guess what? I will kill him first, plain and simple.

it is not that easy in countries like ours...i bet you would be arrested for murder by us if you do so...

Written by Ellrohir on 19.09.2009 at 23:21

Written by MetallicA on 19.09.2009 at 23:02

I will forever own a gun because if someone breaks into my place with the intent to kill, well guess what? I will kill him first, plain and simple.

it is not that easy in countries like ours...i bet you would be arrested for murder by us if you do so...

that is true. Each country has different laws. Even in the US, each state has it's own laws on guns! In the state I live in, what I said is legal (I'm sure there would be an investigation before I would be let go first). There are a few states where you are not allowed to own a gun at all. The only people who have guns are the cops in those states. I live in the southeastern US and the southern states just happen to love guns! (Probably because most southerners are rednecks lol!)

I think it was about a month or so ago when someone tried to rob a gas station here in my city. The person who was working there happened to have a gun on him and he killed the robber (the robber had a gun as well). The store clerk who killed him would have been let go BUT instead, the store clerk decided to shoot the robber a few more times even though the robber was already dead. Because of that, the clerk got charged with murder and went to jail.

Of coarse we don't NEED guns, the human race was doing just fine before the invention of the gun, but I don't have a problem with guns either. War is a part of human nature, weather we choose to acknowledge it or not. There has never been a significant span of time in human history without war, nor will there ever be. Guns have only served to streamline the art of war. Aside from that, guns are also a practical form of self defense and sport.

Written by SerratedSyringe on 16.12.2009 at 17:09

There has never been a significant span of time in human history without war, nor will there ever be. Guns have only served to streamline the art of war. Aside from that, guns are also a practical form of self defense and sport.

I beg to differ, modern humans are 200 000 years old. War is a recent invention. But considering the start of "history" with the invention of writing(as most archaeologists would point out), then, history has never existed without war and a short span of time before it.
And getting on topic, we don't need guns nowadays.

Written by the stranger on 21.12.2009 at 04:09

Written by SerratedSyringe on 16.12.2009 at 17:09

There has never been a significant span of time in human history without war, nor will there ever be. Guns have only served to streamline the art of war. Aside from that, guns are also a practical form of self defense and sport.

I beg to differ, modern humans are 200 000 years old. War is a recent invention. But considering the start of "history" with the invention of writing(as most archaeologists would point out), then, history has never existed without war and a short span of time before it.
And getting on topic, we don't need guns nowadays.

How have you differed? You just confirmed both of my points.

Written by SerratedSyringe on 21.12.2009 at 04:33

Written by the stranger on 21.12.2009 at 04:09

Written by SerratedSyringe on 16.12.2009 at 17:09

There has never been a significant span of time in human history without war, nor will there ever be. Guns have only served to streamline the art of war. Aside from that, guns are also a practical form of self defense and sport.

I beg to differ, modern humans are 200 000 years old. War is a recent invention. But considering the start of "history" with the invention of writing(as most archaeologists would point out), then, history has never existed without war and a short span of time before it.
And getting on topic, we don't need guns nowadays.

How have you differed? You just confirmed both of my points.

Because only acording to that conception of history can you say that there has always been war, but if you consider history as the span of time where there are modern humans, then there is war for a small amount of time.

Written by the stranger on 21.12.2009 at 05:09

Written by SerratedSyringe on 21.12.2009 at 04:33

Written by the stranger on 21.12.2009 at 04:09

Written by SerratedSyringe on 16.12.2009 at 17:09

There has never been a significant span of time in human history without war, nor will there ever be. Guns have only served to streamline the art of war. Aside from that, guns are also a practical form of self defense and sport.

I beg to differ, modern humans are 200 000 years old. War is a recent invention. But considering the start of "history" with the invention of writing(as most archaeologists would point out), then, history has never existed without war and a short span of time before it.
And getting on topic, we don't need guns nowadays.

How have you differed? You just confirmed both of my points.

Because only acording to that conception of history can you say that there has always been war, but if you consider history as the span of time where there are modern humans, then there is war for a small amount of time.

The history of war depends on what actually constitutes war. Ultimately war can be boiled down to aggrivated armed combat, which means two cavemen fighting with sticks could even be considered a small scale war.

Regardless, I think I have established my opinion by now.

We dont need in the general.

Another incident over here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8435857.stm