Carrying Firearms

[DamegedSpy]

This is because the system made the word weapon.

Its like saying that nmap and similar are weapons.
That telnet is a weapon.
That Metasploit is a weapon.
While the truth is that they are tools.

This misconceptions make people say crime = Having firearms(tool) and looking badass.
While a professional say. I need to archive this. and I have this, this, and this.(tools not necessary firearms)

Really, if someone just wants to crack a program. They just do it. Having or not the tools best tools for the job.

[Bren2010]

Tbh, I think no civilians should have weapons.

I moved from a pretty big city to a little town in SC, and you wouldn't believe the rednecks out here (no offense). There are always stories going on about how someone got lost in traffic, pulled into someones driveway to turn around, and the owner of the house comes out guns blaring, and injures/kills the guy. Then they get sent to jail for murder.

[Spectre557]

This is because the system made the word weapon.

Its like saying that nmap and similar are weapons.
That telnet is a weapon.
That Metasploit is a weapon.
While the truth is that they are tools.

A gun is only a "tool" if you actually need it, just like a stick of dynamite... It could potentially be useful in the right hands, but if it's not being used properly and appropriately it's dangerous as hell.

Really, if someone just wants to crack a program. They just do it. Having or not the tools best tools for the job.

Maybe, but does that apply to killing someone?

Fair enough, if someone is obsessed with killing somebody they're probably going to find a way to do it with or without a gun, if they try hard enough. That's not to say you should make it any easier for them.

And as far as I'm concerned, you can't make killing someone much easier than using a gun... It's so incredibly impersonal: You don't even have to be near to the person you're killing, or even do anything at all except aim and squeeze. It makes the act of killing another person immensely easier, not only in that it requires little effort... but in that you don't even particularly have to care; if you kill someone with a crowbar, you have to be pretty damn motivated to hit them hard enough and enough times... whereas if you've got a gun, it's almost as easy as just pressing a button.

Far more people are willing to press a button than bludgeon someone to death up close and personal.

[faazshift]

A gun is only a "tool" if you actually need it, just like a stick of dynamite... It could potentially be useful in the right hands, but if it's not being used properly and appropriately it's dangerous as hell.

How about scissors? They can be a useful tool in the right hands, but in the wrong hands they can be very dangerous. Should we have to get 'scissor permits' to operate them? With what you were saying about distance, how about nail guns? Should we not be able to get those just because of what they can potentially be used for?

Aside from all that, criminals are going to be able to get guns whether they are legal or not. If a citizen cannot have a gun, the criminal only has the advantage. How is a good person supposed to defend themselves if they cant have a reasonable means of defense, yet the criminal does?

[Spectre557]

How about scissors? They can be a useful tool in the right hands, but in the wrong hands they can be very dangerous. Should we have to get 'scissor permits' to operate them? With what you were saying about distance, how about nail guns? Should we not be able to get those just because of what they can potentially be used for?

Scissors aren't designed, constructed, and distributed for the sole purpose of killing things. They're legitimate tools that only have the potential to harm when abused, and are actually useful to many people rather than just a select minority.

Aside from all that, criminals are going to be able to get guns whether they are legal or not. If a citizen cannot have a gun, the criminal only has the advantage. How is a good person supposed to defend themselves if they cant have a reasonable means of defense, yet the criminal does?

They can't defend themself properly without a gun against a criminal who does have one, no.

However, that's not my point. As I previously said...

I've been talking ideals, really - I understand that in places where guns are already easily available introducing gun controls may not be effective or practical.

By which I mean, if criminals will be able to easily access firearms then prohibitng them is pointless. However, if and only if guns could actually be controlled fairly effectively, a much safer system could be established.

[DamegedSpy]

I got an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v-mxvnFLfc
^--- Please its IMPORTANT that you watch this ---^

[stealthyeliminator]

int postCount = 0; lol.
I'm not sure if it's considered bad etiquette here to reply without reading all of the previous posts, but 7 pages will surely take a while, especially in a debate type discussion. If I say something that's already been passed in discussion I apologize.

I'd like to first say that, wow, I find it extremely ironic to see many gun control advocates in a community of this type. The very same principles that allow you to justify gaining and maintaining the ability to hack justifies you to carry a gun. The context is changed, that is all. I don't believe that you need justification, but if you're one to believe that you do, there it is...

Nearly every forum that I participate in has a debate sort of forum, and so I get into these sort of discussions a lot. That being so, if I actually get into discussion here, I'll probably try to mostly quote already perfectly good responses from various places rather than rephrase and retype things that have been phrased and typed a hundred time before. Really though, I don't even know where to start, so I'll just make a list of a few key beliefs I hold.

• It is not a matter of practicality (though it certainly IS practical), it is matter of the fact that it is a right of the people to carry weapons (of any type).
• Gun control laws are used, despite whatever excuses are used to enact them, to shift the balance of power from the citizens (you and me) to the government (the people who still have a bunch of guns).
• Criminals by definition do not obey the law. The 'dangerous' people (the criminals) are rarely effected by such laws, while 'not dangerous' people are greatly affected.
• A side effect of the shift of power from people to government is that the balance of power between law abiding citizen and criminal is also changed, reducing power of the law abiding citizen a lot more so than that of the criminal, if the criminal at all.
• While it's not a matter of practicality, it is more practical for law abiding citizens to carry guns (and so, be allowed to) because:
  
  • it allows the control of tyranny, which would otherwise be difficult or impossible to do (a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. so, everything I say is assuming that both freedom and security is desirable. the only way to have both is through the use of a militia)
  • it demands a greater mutual respect of the public by the public
  • it demands a greater attempt at peaceful conflict resolution, because the cost of violent 'resolution' is higher for all parties involved.
  • it offers greater security nationally, aside from the domestic benefits (through the implementation of a militia)
    

Well, I could go on, but I gotta go. I'll be looking forward to seeing my post picked apart and me scrambling to make a defense. haha. Have a nice day

postCount++;