# NT Gun Control



## Drake (Oct 31, 2009)

Isitso said:


> I don't really approve of citizens owning deadly weapons. I am sure that some people know how to use a gun wisely and when it should not be used, but as we know from many murders etc weapons in the wrong hands are extremely dangerous (could I state a more obvious point?). I don't need to go into my own deep personal thoughts on weapons to realize that statistically, countries with more gun control have lower crime rates. I would prefer to live somewhere that has lower crime rates.


So having a population of sheeple will limit the amount of crime? I dont think so. Having armed citizens does limit the amount of crime, due to the fact that the population will be as well or better armed and trained then the person trying to commit the crime. If someone is trying to break onto my house while my wife and children are there, they wont make it past the window or door. Why you may ask. Becouse there is no less then 2 pistols, a shutgun, and a rifle or 2 in my home at any given time. In a perfect world we would not have to take steps tp protect ourselvs, our loved ones, and our property, but sadly this is a far from perfect world.


----------



## Isitso (Dec 3, 2009)

The criminals wouldn't have the guns if there was proper gun control, therefore citizens would not need a gun. Also, there are less serious ways to ward a criminal off, such as an alarm system and a taser.


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

haha; The government is only as smart as its stupidest person. Criminals will always find a way to get things they want. There is an underground market. I mean we can't even stop human trafficking. How do you think we're going to stop gun imports? It's like the person who thinks "Remove all the torrent sites and no one will be able to pirate". Well, that's incorrect. Or Or People trying to create "unhackable" devices. There is always a way to get around it, or better yet, Where theirs a will there is a way.


----------



## Abschaum (Dec 12, 2009)

I am very much against gun control and I think I am the only one who is in my country. But I still think you should need to have a licens(like driving licens for cars) and if you for exemple have commited a serious crime you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Other than that I think that full auto assault rifles should be legal.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I am an INTP and for gun rights, even though I am a liberal US democrat, and this is for a number of reasons.
#!. It's our constitutional right. Nearly a million people have died to give and defend these rights, so it's just plain ungrateful to not use it.
#2. The people need to be able to defend themselves.
#3. Boost to the economy, becuase AR-15's cost $1500 each, and all the other asssault weapons are typically quite expensive, so we could end up getting a huge boost in gun sales.
#4. To balance power, because when only the governent have guns, they can do anything, and they eventually will, remember the patriot act?
#5. To defend the nation, because if a terrorist attack or war were to start, and the US was invaded, then we'd need everyone available to fight; civilians heavily outnumber military personnel.

I finally think that we deserve access to the same weapons technology as our government. The Assault Weapons ban was a very well disguised obstuction of freedom. Wen it was passed only two percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, and even in the infamous hollywood bank shootout, the only two people who died were the robbers. Because of my beleif in the second ammentment, I have an AK-47 and what's the point of having one if you have to keep it hidden all the time and you can't even practice with it.


----------



## Drake (Oct 31, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I finally think that we deserve access to the same weapons technology as our government. The Assault Weapons ban was a very well disguised obstuction of freedom. Wen it was passed only two percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, and even in the infamous hollywood bank shootout, the only two people who died were the robbers. Because of my beleif in the second amment ment, I have an AK-47 and what's the point of having one if you have to keep it hidden all the time and you can't even practice with it.



You bring up another one of my sore spots, the assault weapons ban. I cant believe how many people think that A.R stands for assault rifle, not Armilite Rifles, who manufactured the first popular modular rifle. Now they pass laws to limit the weapons because it looks mean and could hurt someone. I have a standard Wearthby .30-06 that is sighted in at 100 yards and I could pick targets off all day at that range. I am currently in the procces of making an AR .308 to use at the deer camp as that is the style i am most familwer with and comfertable with. The looks of the weapon does not affect how it is used.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I'm planning on getting an 1873 Winchester. It's not a bad rifle, and you can circumvent all those BS laws. It's also a matter of training, and that's the whole thing of special forces. A team of Delta Force can fight off an entire platoon because the Delta Force is much more skilled and better soldiers than a bunch of conscripts. Because of training, a qualified cop with a Glok-17 is going to be much better in a firefight than a civilian with a Desert Eagle.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Drake said:


> You bring up another one of my sore spots, the assault weapons ban. I cant believe how many people think that A.R stands for assault rifle, not Armilite Rifles, who manufactured the first popular modular rifle. Now they pass laws to limit the weapons because it looks mean and could hurt someone. I have a standard Wearthby .30-06 that is sighted in at 100 yards and I could pick targets off all day at that range. I am currently in the procces of making an AR .308 to use at the deer camp as that is the style i am most familwer with and comfertable with. The looks of the weapon does not affect how it is used.


If you look at the California bans on assault rifles, the language reads that the bad is due to the 30 round exchangeable magazine. You can still own an AR-15, AK-47 and SKS if you have a permanently affixed magazine. The argument is not that civilians should not own these rifles, its that civilians _just do not need_ the ability to to dump thousands of rounds down range in a short period of time.


----------



## Drake (Oct 31, 2009)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> If you look at the California bans on assault rifles, the language reads that the bad is due to the 30 round exchangeable magazine. You can still own an AR-15, AK-47 and SKS if you have a permanently affixed magazine. The argument is not that civilians should not own these rifles, its that civilians _just do not need_ the ability to to dump thousands of rounds down range in a short period of time.


I used to live in CA when the ban was first implemented, and yes the magazine was part of the ban. As a law abiding citizen, my weapons conform to the laws and regulations currently established, even though I have the skill to modify them otherwise. Sadly though I also am well aware to go if I wish to purchase something along the more exotic lines, so basically, all the ban does is keep the fun firepower out of lawful citizens.


----------



## Dooraven (Dec 9, 2009)

Basically I support a Firearms license like a Drivers License, and it should be a graduated process like Learner, Restricted and Full except the Restricted would make you go to a proper Firearms training centres. 
A Learner license would require you to pass a theory and saftey test.
A Restricted would require you to do a training course on the suitable use of guns.
A Full would be unrestricted use.

Not only that but crimes involving guns would be easier to trace to the guns owner.
Or if the license doesn't work then people should at least go through a training program before buying a gun.

I don't support a firearm ban for civilians because

a) Criminals would get them anyway 
b) Gun's when used properly save countless of lives. Unfortunately there are instances when things go wrong. Does that mean we should ban them?


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm fine with right to bear arms, but I don't agree with this line of thought,



> fourth reason: IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, THE *PEOPLE* WOULD THEN BE CAPABLE OF FUCKING THE GOVERNMENT UP WITH A NICE ARMED REVOLUTION...this one in particular is the reason i advocate unlimited gun control (but with restrictions on violent felons n such)


People?_ Who?_ People have this habit of disagreeing with each other. From this side, that leads to :
- Whoever owns the most firearm wins/ have the capability of ruining the lives of the rest of the population, anarchy, also
- Civil war. Again, people have this habit of disagreeing with each other.

I can't see how an armed revolution could be 'nice'. So far I'd rather have the government regulate the heavy weaponry and keep it to themselves.


----------



## Versatile Leader (Nov 4, 2009)

People should not own guns. Its that simple. check countries that have stupid gun control like America and South africa. CHECK THE ATMOSPHERE in those countries AND TELL ME THAT IS A WORLD EVERYONE wants to live in? I can't wait for the moemnt when human nature will cease to exist, its the cause fo all these troubles in the world. With its poor reasoning that creates difficulties in the world.

Increase in knowledge increase in sorrow


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Drake said:


> I used to live in CA when the ban was first implemented, and yes the magazine was part of the ban. As a law abiding citizen, my weapons conform to the laws and regulations currently established, even though I have the skill to modify them otherwise. Sadly though I also am well aware to go if I wish to purchase something along the more exotic lines, so basically, all the ban does is keep the fun firepower out of lawful citizens.



You would look at as a limit on your fun. :tongue:
I think what the ban really does is limit the power of the citizens should mutiny occur against the government under the guise of protecting the "good guys".


----------



## fafyrd (Nov 20, 2009)

wannaBgonzo said:


> Hey guys...i was just posting in another thread here in the NT forums and it got me thinkin bout gun control.
> 
> so my lovelies, what are your opinions on gun control?
> 
> ...


I agree with the above although I'd let violent felons have them too because _shall not be infringed_ is pretty clear.


----------

