Like you said we need to be able to protect ourselves, and thus sometimes weapons are needed, but you cant blame the weapon itself for the damage done, the weapon doesnt have a concious, nor will, therefore its the person behind the weapon, not the weapon. The weapon itself can be used for good as well as evil, the trigger doesnt discriminate.

If it isn't a gun, it is something else...
All weapons could be eliminated, and then there will still be killing, we humans are preoccupied with it.
As long as there have been people, we have killed each other.
Some one is always going to be violent, or intolerant, or tyrannical.
We need to turn the guns on the sociopaths perhaps...

Since we are in a METAL forum...
Medaeth - "Only fools stand up and really lay down their arms
No, not me, not when death lasts forever".

yet what frightens me really is nuclear weapons, which should be banned - yet I don't know if it's even realistic.

Simple: no. We don't need guns. If all firearms would be taken away and we would be somehow unable to reproduce them, the world would go forwards as it has before... expect for the killing part. Hail the sword age! Instead of guns we would have swords, spears, axes, bows and so on. And the killing spree continues. But then again, you can use pretty much anything as a weapon. Hail the chemistry! And now we have bombs to throw at each other as in Bomberman. And the killing spree continues...

Really, guns aren't a problem. Yes, it's easier and faster to kill with them, but banning them doesn't stop killing. Only problem with them is that they defy the nature's law "strong survive" as if you have a gun and the other guy has a kitchen knife, you'll probably win.

Humans have always had wars, killed each other and it'll continue until the end.

Marduk - Here's No Peace

But... but... but guns are awesome



FIRE !!!

If we didn't have guns we wouldn't have kick ass John Woo movies. Besides, people would find another way to kill anyways.

Written by I_Die_Often on 30.03.2010 at 03:31

If it isn't a gun, it is something else...
All weapons could be eliminated, and then there will still be killing, we humans are preoccupied with it.
As long as there have been people, we have killed each other.
Some one is always going to be violent, or intolerant, or tyrannical.
We need to turn the guns on the sociopaths perhaps...

Exactly. Ban guns, and they'll use knives. Ban knives, they'll use rocks. Etc.

Plus, gun control doesn't seem to be too effective for illegal weapons. The black market doesn't subscribe to laws, nor do criminals. Making guns illegal won't stop weapons already in circulation, and it certainly won't prevent smuggling (look at drug laws as an example).

Furthermore, it could increase the demand for weapons, as ordinary citizens would feel defenseless against armed criminals, and would have nowhere to turn except the black market. The police aren't always effective at preventing crime and protecting citizens, using the city of Detroit (with personal experience) as an as an example. Highly inept/apathetic police force.

Are guns needed? In an ideal world, no. In the real world? Yes.

I have a gun (Glock 17 - 9mm) but only because I need it for work.

Awesome pistol by the way!!!!

@Hellish Star: Have you even shot anyone?

We need guns, one good motive: to protect ourselves from wild animals

We need guns in case that some alien species try to attack us...but than again they will probably have superior weapons than our weapon systems...

We need guns but we don't need stupid people with their stupid reasons for killing people/animals.

Yes, We need guns, in the United States it's part of our national identity and history. But, then again so is genocide and slavery.

I usually am pretty liberal in most cases, but in terms of firearms I believe that as human beings it is our right to protect ourselves and our family by the best means we can, if that includes guns so be it.

I dislike the word "need" for this kind of situation. There is no need. Plenty of countries get by just fine with next to no guns in circulation. They are just different approaches to the issue, and both have their inherent problems.

Yes, if you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns. This is true. On the other hand, if guns are legal, all the criminals will have them. The issue pedals back and forth between these two arguments, and generally, I'd see the second one as more valid.

What the Americans have forgotten though, is the real reason that the right to bear arms is in the constitution. Sure, the wild west wasn't completely safe all the time, but it also wasn't anything like the movies you've probably seen. The real reason that the right is guaranteed is to ensure that if the US ever becomes a dictatorship (if someone proclaims himself as the king of America, basically), the people will have a means to rise up and overthrow the dictator. It is a remnant from the American revolution when the people rose up against the British Empire (by all means a nearly completely insane dictatorship, but then again so was all of Europe back in those days). That argument I can accept, since the idea itself of a dictatorship protection isn't that stupid at all.

What becomes ridiculous is when Americans ignore the downsides, and make ridiculous statements that the streets of America would be less safe if guns were outlawed. Specifically, the "right to protect yourself and ensure your safety" and the "if guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns" arguments are pretty much invalid, because they are turned away from reality (just look at the statistics regarding gun related crimes not in the third world). The dictatorsip protection argument (used by the founding fathers) is much better, and a completely valid one. Fact is, though, that most Americans probably wouldn't buy it, since they feel so distanced from the thought of a dictatorship ever becoming a reality in the US (it's a bit of that "Nah, that only happens in other places" mentality that we also see in Europe).

So, what do you do when you can't sell an argument that is actually valid to the public? You make up a simpler argument that people could actually buy.

So yeah, both sides have valid arguments, but both sides also have their respective flaws. Yes, a lack of guns will (as shown by statistics) make the place safer for the public, but what should the people do if democracy goes down the drain in such a case? And yes, a supply of guns availible to the public might provide means to carry out a revolution against a dictatorship that forms in the country, but the rates of gun related crime are sure to rise.

So, there's really no definitive answer as to who's "right". It depends on your perspective.

I personally wouldn't support any kind of legalization of guns in Sweden, since there's just no reason at this point. I like the fact that I can go (walk alone) pretty much anywhere I want in my hometown during practically any hour, and my fear of something bad happening can still be miniscule. I'd say that grants me a whole lot more freedom than the freedom to carry guns would.

You have the right to carry guns, and I have the right not to fear people with guns as I walk through some of the more run down suburbs at 4 in the morning (lots of Swedish people go through their whole life without ever seeing a real gun except in the holster of a cop or carried by a soldier guarding something important).

I don't really agree with the thesis that people should have the right to carry guns, but I understand why the American constitution was written that way (while a lot of gun-loving Americans seem not to).

Once the rest of the world give up the idea that we need guns so will I...till then...
Even then I would need no guns if I would go around killing...
Got my point?

Written by Candlemass on 02.04.2010 at 18:37

yet what frightens me really is nuclear weapons, which should be banned - yet I don't know if it's even realistic.

I agree 100%. Nuclear warfare scares the living shit out of me.

On a side note, a new shooting range just opened down the road from me about a month ago, I've been there 3 times already! Damn I love shooting!

Written by MetallicA on 25.01.2011 at 06:21

I agree 100%. Nuclear warfare scares the living shit out of me.

It shouldn't really, because it would be a quick war - as simple and painless as a death by decapitation as opposed to a long, slow horrible death by starvation. Plus, think of all the cool mutations you could check out if you should survive!

Gotta love the Yanks and their love for guns Ottawa Citizen

Written by [user id=105293] on 26.01.2011 at 00:24

as simple and painless as a death by decapitation

Only if it drops straight on you... surviving the indirect damage will be a lot more inconvenient thing...

Yes. But what we don't need are "murderers". It's the owner that killed, not the gun.

@OP: Your example is very situational, if that killer was a psychopath, he may have just chopped/beaten/clubbed the "trespasser" to death if he didn't have any guns.

Written by ArtKiz on 16.02.2011 at 05:17

Yes. But what we don't need are "murderers". It's the owner that killed, not the gun.

@OP: Your example is very situational, if that killer was a psychopath, he may have just chopped/beaten/clubbed the "trespasser" to death if he didn't have any guns.

Correct, the gun is just a much much much better tool for murder than other weapons in most cases.

I really believe guns are needed for self defense. We always had a riffle at home, and noone got shot by it until today (unless some birds in the garden). It belongs to my father since when he was very young, is some kind of family relic, even when us kids were small we didn't played around with that. If someones invades my house (as a thief), I would have no doubts of shooting him, (but again, is for defense).
I believe I would buy myself a gun if I had the oportunity

It's very very rare here to need a gun for self defense, always laugh when I hear that as our laws never intended for us to have guns for that reason.

I don't think there is a NEED for guns... But target shooting is one of my favorite pasttimes.

I think self-defence weapons (traumatic, pneumatic, gas, some sorts of cold steel etc.) + guns for sport and hunt shooting are for the civils, but the fire-arms weapons need to be used for the militaries and law enforcement purpoces only.

Written by Ghostdancer on 11.05.2011 at 02:44

I don't think there is a NEED for guns... But target shooting is one of my favorite pasttimes.

Good point. Target shooting is fun. Guns are manly and cool. Guns make hunting a lot easier, too. They are also very fun to use in shooting video games.



As for the overall topic, I don't see what makes guns worse than, say, swords, maces, battleaxes, etc? Those things have all been used in wars to kill lots and lots of people, and the way I see it, guns are for war. Is war needed?... That's a whole different topic. Do I think gun violence like in the lake story in the original post is okay? Not really. But that's the fault of the people using the gun, not the gun itself. Crazy people kill other people with all kinds of things. Maybe better gun control laws would be a good idea in America, I don't know. But I'm not the one to say they are or aren't.

I guess I'm for guns more than I'm not because I really wouldn't want to give up the ones I have. I've come to enjoy the feel of shooting various calibers. When the idea of having to give them up comes up, I feel a huge "fuck you" inside of me. Maybe it's American rebelliousness. I don't know. They may not be necessary and I'll probabaly never need one for self-defense (though I am competent enough to use one if I actually had to)...but I like my guns and don't want anyone fucking with me owning them.

I've voted "YES" because in the modern life, there's no way to protect yourself unless you have 3 things:
1-Money
2-Muscles
3-Guns

But I believe Money won't be much of a help, you get broken if someone robs you. The robber may also be a serial killer so you're knee-deep in S**t
Muscles are a better alternate. Though you may be too much of a Sloth to even think about them
And finally, GUNS! who doesn't like them? even kids enjoy with their guns, whether it's a cheap plastic Water-gun or a Desert Eagle borrowed from their uncle. LOL

But Seriously, the existence of armaments itself promotes violence, since you have something you can only kill people with, but you can't cut the butter or mow the lawns! LOL

Written by Monolithic on 15.08.2011 at 14:29

1-Money
2-Muscles
3-Guns
4-INTELLIGENCE

You missed one. If you aren't smart, you don't know what to spend your money on, when to use your guns (muscles or pistols), nor how to shoot.

I think Intelligence is the ESSENTIAL matter if you are even living on this planet, Troy. The very reason you're standing on your own feet. you'll have it anyway. Though people have different amount of intelligence...I'm not sure, I don't judge people just because they're intelligent or anything...;)