Hack This Site Forum

The Riviera Kid wrote:
You may not think it but guns have in fact kept 'us' at the top of the food chain, or else it would look like this:

fish -> bear -> 'us' -> japanese

Those samurai would have pwned us otherwise .

This "guns == top of food chain" line of reasoning is a bit short-sighted, don't you think? Given that repeating firearms have been around about 200 years (a generous estimate), and that regardless of how long man has been around (even the creationists give 6013 years, this October), what about all those thousands of years before firearms, eh?

The Samurai were packing heat, too.

The arquebus, a matchlock gun, was introduced by the Portuguese via a Chinese pirate ship in 1543 and the Japanese succeeded in assimilating it within a decade. Groups of mercenaries with mass-produced arquebuses began playing a critical role.

By the end of feudal period, several hundred thousand firearms existed in Japan and massive armies numbering over 100,000 clashed in battles. By comparison, the largest and most powerful army in Europe, the Spanish, had only several thousand firearms and could only assemble 30,000 troops. Source

Dragging this post back on topic, kicking and screaming---

"God made all men the same, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

The right to carry firearms as a means to defend yourself should not be restricted, IMHO. Regulated--absolutely. Register my firearm? I see no reason not to.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. " R.A. Heinlein

- I don't really think that 'us' being at the top of the food chain is an excuse for guns (unfortunately a [joke] tag isn't allowed replies), i thought that part was obvious since i generally don't think we are superior in any way to the japanese (i should have clarified).
But I think that guns shouldn't need a reason to exist (for hunting, etc) they should be allowed for anyone who has proven they are capable of being responsible with them. As much as i hate to say this there should be a high age limit on having them (as much as kids should have rights too, and i hated having to wait 17 years before I could drive), I realise now that i wasn't ready for that responibility back then.

The Riviera Kid wrote:- I don't really think that 'us' being at the top of the food chain is an excuse for guns (unfortunately a [joke] tag isn't allowed replies), i thought that part was obvious since i generally don't think we are superior in any way to the japanese (i should have clarified).

@ The Riviera Kid: I meant no offense with my last post. It was written more with Charlieace in mind. Meant no offense in his direction either, just totally reject his argument. I try to disagree with humor, but sometimes it fails--badly. As to the Japanese, I had been looking for something completely different when I came across the article. There was just something about shotgun wielding Samurai that was just too cool to pass by.

What do you think of an age restriction? The reason I feel bad saying one should be imposed is that, generally people can't be trusted when younger - and that's what I hate about that sentence "generally" and i'm grouping everyone else in with the people who can't be trusted
- Much like insurance on my car (generally boys of 20 crash alot) - i'm not one of them and i resent not just that I have to pay massive insurance but also the implication of my driving skills.

Obviously though, saying 5 year olds have the right to have guns is ridiculous, but is there another way of limiting/allowing guns without making assumptions about people based on similar (ages, etc)?

i think the idea of carrying around firearms is ridiculous.
not to mention kids carrying guns? a five year old would shoot another kid just because he stole some candy!

if you have access to it, you're more likely to use it. if someone pisses you off, and you don't have a gun, the worst that can happen is you fight. if you have a gun, you're not going to fight, you're going to use the gun.

The Riviera Kid wrote:What do you think of an age restriction?

It is an absolute requirement. Having said that, I think that anyone that has reached majority should be allowed to carry a firearm *if* they meet the other requirements, and age should not be considered. The other side of that coin is, no minor should ever be allowed to carry.

minors do not fully understand the power of a firearm, especially with video games (and i know i sound like a friggin' parent), hence they would not realize the consequence of using the gun they carry.

Charlieace wrote:minors do not fully understand the power of a firearm, especially with video games (and i know i sound like a friggin' parent), hence they would not realize the consequence of using the gun they carry.

This is quite a misconception. Again, I've been messing with guns since I was 4 years old, and have never once shot a person, nor have I planned to, even as a kid. I was taught full and well what guns are capable of and what using one responsibly means. I have never put video games on the same level as actual human lives.

Charlieace wrote:minors do not fully understand the power of a firearm, especially with video games (and i know i sound like a friggin' parent), hence they would not realize the consequence of using the gun they carry.

Using your own logic, minors should not be allowed to drive if they have ever played GTA. Anyone who has ever seen "Superman" shouldn't be allowed any higher than the ground floor, lest they jump from a window while attempting to fly.

Anyone who cannot determine the difference between the real world and a video game is mentally ill and should have medical treatment.

Wootz wrote:This is quite a misconception. Again, I've been messing with guns since I was 4 years old, and have never once shot a person, nor have I planned to, even as a kid. I was taught full and well what guns are capable of and what using one responsibly means. I have never put video games on the same level as actual human lives.

Agree completely.

A person on the day they legally become an adult is exactly the same person they were the day before, when they were a minor. If they haven't grown up by then, being "legal" won't make them mature. It only makes them fully responsible for their actions. Likewise, most minors are acting like adults long before they become adults legally.

Alright well iv'e been reading most of your posts and i think its just a matter of personal opinion. I myself own multiple guns and i support the second amendment. But some of you think that banning them altogether will make it better. hmmm well lets not get a little bit too rash now. So say that guns were miraculously banned, then what would all the avid hunters do? Not only that the population of game and wildlife would drastically change high or low. illegalizing firearms will undoubtedly piss a lot of ppl off. Now that pres. Obama is in office he plans to ban most common calibers used for hunting along with semi automatic and pump action rifles. but of course full auto's are banned. My opinion is that this so called "free" country should give everone with a clean record be able to exercise there rights and bear arms. I am actually quite disturbed to hear that some ppl dont want us to have a chance to defend ourselves with guns in the home. Oh well fuck those ppl at least i have my peace of mind knowing im safe from intruders and such. I have a clear warning outside my house saying "To tresspassers-Beware of gun", anyone that wants to test that would find out real quick. So my opinion is that if the "bad guys" want guns they can and will get them. So why ban them it just gives them the upperhand. Support the second amendment and donate to the NRA to help us get ward off thes rediculous bills trying to be passed by anti-gun supporters.