Silkroad Online Forums

then the retard who sold a mental person a gun should be the one to blame

It also depends on your definition of owning a gun, and from what I'm getting most of you guys don't live in the bush or anything as remote as Alaska. To people in the city guns mean safety and protection to people in the bush guns mean food for the winter. I've been to Alaska a few times in the winter, not a lot of game running around for the natives to shoot, therefor a gun is preferred over a spear or bow.

Wiki says Cho withheld information about his mental deficiency:



They do check for these things. Pretty sure it's illegal to fill out the questionnaire with false information too. Every time I've ever bought a gun they've given me one.

I don't have a problem with people possessing firearms, but I do have a problem with trigger happy retards who are eager to shoot anyone who crosses them. What are you going to do when some wasted dude breaks in and passes out on your toilet? Shoot him dead because he might be dangerous? Just get a C2 (available in purple for the ladies) if you want to defend yourself. You probably aren't going to kill anyone if you are too stupid to judge a threat properly, and you aren't totally farked if it's turned on you.

Also, I think it's pretty funny when someone thinks their silly guns are going to help them rebel against the government if need be. Sure, Al-Qaeda isn't doing too shabby, but you wouldn't be caught dead living in the same conditions as them now would you? Guerrilla warfare isn't camping trip Red Dawn makes it out to be. Save your guns for a more serious threat, like zombie outbreaks.

i think civilians should own guns for hunting and sport. About 50% of people who own guns for "self defense" are the people who shouldn't have them. If you aren't going to be able to pull the trigger when it matters you shouldn't have a gun.
now a days if you have a gun and try to defend yourself with it you will get sued, even if the other person warrants such action... and the sad thing is they win
shoot to kill

Ok, so giving everyone a gun will reduce violence?

They aren't just for revolution, though it could happen. They're for when government collapses, and society is in chaos. It's not about fighting the full strength of the US army head on in the streets. That's a ridiculous scenario. You also have to figure what the military would think about going against their own people.

And if somebody breaks into your house and all you have is that taser, what happens if you miss, or there's more than 1 guy? Tasers are shit for home defense situations.



I think about 90% of the country has uninformed opinions on guns. You'd be part of that 90%.



Statistics prove that's the case.

Will never happen, not in our lifetimes at least. Even if the government did collapse, we wouldn't plunge straight into chaos. Things would be rough, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. You're assuming maniacs with guns would rape, pillage and kill, but I think they are far outnumbered.

If there's more than one guy chances are you're farked, period. If there's just one guy and he finds your gun(s) before you do, you're farked. If you somehow manage to miss in close quarters with the Taser, you can still use it as a stun gun. Plus you don't end up with holes in your walls and blood on your carpet.

I like current laws for them here. None of this "right to bear arms" thing. Quote me, do as you please. It isn't going to change my opinion.

You think it wouldn't? "Better safe than sorry" comes to mind. Do you like betting your life on the actions of others? I don't. And considering a great number of people in the US are indeed armed, and would love nothing more than that sort of chaos, it's only natural to arm yourself. Even on a local scale it can be destructive. Who knows how the world will react if the government collapses.



The point is to have that gun in a place where you can get to it before they do, and in time enough to either force them to leave, or shoot to defend yourself. Good luck rushing an armed intruder with a taser and expecting any results. Holes in my wall and blood on my carpet are small prices to pay for being alive and saving my possessions. Most of these situations are known to be resolved without any shots being fired at all.

It's been said that the best weapon is one you never have to fire. But in order for that to happen, you have to have the weapon in the first place.

You don't aim a gun at anyone unless you are prepared to kill them. By pulling one out you have just escalated the situation. What happens if you miss, or you can't stop the guy? Now you've just got a really pissed off guy wrestling your gun from you? And what happens if he's armed in the first place? A Taser is virtually guaranteed to take out your target if it hits, but in any case you probably shouldn't mess with an armed intruder because you're basically asking to be killed.

Then I have a magazine with 29 more rounds to make up for it.



If he's armed with a gun, I shoot first. He's on my property with a (loaded?) weapon, and picked the wrong guy to f*ck with. If it's a knife or baseball bat or something, I still have my wepaon and tell him to get the f*ck out if he wants to keep his nuts. Like I said, most of these home invasion situations end before the trigger is even pulled. What are you going to do as a thief when someone comes out with an AK and points it in your direction? At that point you better hope you're armed because at least then you might be able to do something about it.

Yes, you will probably succeed, but what if you don't, and how are you any better off than if you had just used a Taser? If you hit him he's out in one shot, and if you don't you still have the upper hand. The only problem I see with the Taser in this case is that now you are relying on pain compliance until the police arrive.

Yeah, and what if he shoots first? Would he have shot first if you were unarmed? Most people would prefer to avoid murder if at all possible, so the best way to maximize your chances of survival in that case is to avoid escalating the situation.

I'm better off Cruor because I'm not relying on a 1 shot scenario. Do you think an armed burglar is going to care what it is that I'm aiming at him before he shoots? Do you think he would shoot in the first place or run like hell realizing I'm packing much larger heat than him? I don't know, but that 30 rounds has me covered pretty good. The surprise/intimidation factor doesn't hurt either. A taser like that would be more suited to a different situation than home defense.



I'm not going to just let him take my shit when I have the means to do something about it. I may not even have to shoot.

If he shoots at me first then he just ruined any chance he might have at getting away with any of my shit anyway. So think of yourself in his shoes: Do you shoot at this guy who just came out with a gun when all you're there for is his stuff, getting yourself in line to die, or do you say **** it and take your chances running off without waking up the entire neighborhood or getting a 7.62 in your skull?

I'd love to debate hypothetical scenarios with you right now Cruor but I have an incredible headache at the moment. The facts and statistics are out there, and I know they favor my arguments. Maybe tomorrow I'll look for them for you guys.

For that scenario we were talking about an unarmed burglar. My stance on armed intruders is that you should comply peaceably, like you would with a mugger because this minimizes your chances of being harmed.

If I brought a gun with me damn straight I would shoot. The risk is too great not to; by turning back I would just be making myself vulnerable. As the homeowner, I would shoot the armed robber. There's no negotiating when guns are involved, and I'm not going to turn an armed robber loose. In either case, by bringing a gun into the equation I am increasing the chances of someone being harmed. Ultimately I would rather insure my valuables than risk bodily harm.

I heard a comedian once (Forgot who) who had an interesting idea concering guns. Make the guns cheap, but the bullets 5000 dollars a piece. People can still buy guns but will think twice when actually shooting, cause the bullets are to damn expensive.

wait wat happened to the 2nd amendment?
i have the right to bear arms god dammit if i wanna carry a shotty with me to the store then by god i will god dammit...

Bingo, lets erase the 2nd amendment

Stupidest thing Ive ever heard... read the thread all the way through, and if you have 1/2 or even 1/4 of a brain you'll see that's not a good idea. Guns have more uses than defense too, Don't forget that. Unfortunately, we elected the right person to take that freedom. I'm in Texas... and with the way things are looking with the Cartels at the border of NM and TX i want to have a Firearm to protect my family friends and so forth...

Seriously, I have a brain, and for me as someone from Europe legalizing guns is stupid. My question also is, how many americans just buy a gun to feel save, but never use it?

Bluntly put, why do you need a gun to feel safe? It's weird in my eyes.

should have better screening for ppl who want to buy any gun...i dated someone who i know full and well should never ever be given a weapon and he just went and bought out a shotgun...somethings up with that...

And how would you want to implement that? Probably have to change the 2nd amendment.

Some fools do buy guns here without a clue on how to use them, and keep them for the sake of feeling safe. Smart people buy guns, and when they aren't around the house for the defense factor, they're out at ranges learning how to get better with them and be more responsible.

2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. It's part of what makes the US a "free country". Europeans of all people should know that bans don't do squat.

Bans or limiting of firearms?

In holland for example you need a special permit etc. etc. before your allowed a gun, thats something better then every random person beeing able to buy a gun. All this crap about freedom is pointless, freedom is an illusion since we are all tied by rules one way or another.

The freedom of speech for example has certain rules.

you wouldn't need an amendment change...just heighten the screening process already in place...

To clarify, what does the 2nd amendment say. That everyone has the right to a gun, or is there anything filtered?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


thats copied from Wikipedia.

what it says is we have the right to bear arms and own weapons. Its also in place to keep the govmnt in check, to keep them from taking our God given freedoms. but people now a days are so willing to give up their rights as long as they can have a beer and watch American idol without being bothered. sad but true...

+1.

If someone really wants to get themselfs a gun, they will, with or without this rule, the people who use the guns "in a bad way" will end up by getting them. So yeah, it should be legall, obviously, if he/she has any record of previous actions that do the law does not tolerate, NO GUN.

So basicly the 2nd amendment needs to be changed to "You have the right if... ", or doesn't it work like that. And obviously it seem it old, times then where different. But since then it became common to own a gun.