[Jaysh]

Also, you guys should watch Future Weapons. There are a lot of non-lethal weapons that can be used to defend oneself. So the excuse of self-defense goes down the drain.

What do you pro-gun people (Six Pak and Good Ol) think about heavy guns, such as AK's and semi-automatics, etc? (I don't really know much about guns, so I'm just pretty much listing the guns I've heard on tv.)

Do you think ALL guns should be allowed?

Anyways, I think I will get a tank to defend my family. Just park it in my garage next to my Praxis, and then every time some bad guy tries to break in the house, I'll just hop right in and blast him to pieces.

[bravotwozero]

I'm pretty sure assault weapons are already banned in the US.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by bravotwozero

I'm pretty sure assault weapons are already banned in the US.

Yeah, but I want their views on it (six pak and good ol jr). Most gun-toting conservatives hate the liberals for enacting such bans, and if it were up to them, you'd be allowed to walk around with rocket launchers.

[Variable]

I love guns, the bigger the better. But I definitely don't trust your average joe to be able to use one properly in a heated situation...

pro gun control here.

[Good_ol_JR]

OK bro, I don't know how much time you've spent in Pakistan, but any honest Pashtun will tell you that it is nothing extraordinary for a Pashtun to have an anti-aircraft missile thing in their backyard, and they routinely use it against their neighbors and their jahiliyyah feuds.

If one group of people really needs their guns taken away, it is the Pashtuns! They use their guns to kill others in their petty feuds. This is a *fact*. And they use ridicolous firepower--stuff used by armies--against their neighbors!

C'mon papa be realistic I'll have you know I spent not just one but two weeks in that land when I was 16, so yeah I'm hip to it's swagger. You honestly think the Afghan Mujahids could fight off the USSR and hold their own against NATO if it weren't for their gun-savvy red-neck culture? That's their life and blood, and it's the reason they've never been conquered.

And this is a very interesting facts because when you look at most Afghan people, they're not really big guys papa. Most of them are around 5'5 weigh like 130 lbs, built like Julio Caesar Chavez; but they're still feared because they're good with guns that's what keeps them going.

They kind of remind me of the Salvadorians who live in Virginia; they're mostly small guys and they always used to get picked on by blacks, whites, and other Hispanics. But then they formed Mara Salvachuras or MS-13, the most dangerous street gang out there right and now except maybe the Suenoes and now everyone thinks twice before messing with those dudes. Those little guys make the Bloods and Crips look like pansies, no joke holmes.

Firepower is important for people to have, because it people who are weak and small in numbers to fight off stronger, more numerous groups. After all a bullet fired by a 130 pounder is no less effective than one fired by someone who is 260 lbs. No such thing as a fair fight unless weight classes are involved.

Anyways, I think I will get a tank to defend my family. Just park it in my garage next to my Praxis, and then every time some bad guy tries to break in the house, I'll just hop right in and blast him to pieces.

C'mon papa be realistic, by the time you get outside, hop in and rev the engine up, the guy has completed his mission. What you need to do is plant one of those land mines under your doormat; or get one of those rottweiler dogs, keeping them outside of course

Originally Posted by Variable

I love guns, the bigger the better. But I definitely don't trust your average joe to be able to use one properly in a heated situation...

pro gun control here.

Well as part of the background check you should be required to receive like 3-6 months of safety/target training until you pass the course. And some guns are real easy for even beginners to use. But to use assault weapons you should have at least a couple years of training. It's all relative.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by Variable

I love guns, the bigger the better. But I definitely don't trust your average joe to be able to use one properly in a heated situation...

pro gun control here.

We agree on something!

And by the way, I love guns too. I love watching Future Weapons and seeing how cool the guns are.

But nonetheless, I will ban guns when I become president.

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

C'mon papa be realistic I'll have you know I spent not just one but two weeks in that land when I was 16, so yeah I'm hip to it's swagger.

lol @ 2 weeks.

Bro, I am going to concede one point to you, which is that yes I do believe that the Afghans were able to repulse the Russians in large part due to their gun-toting culture. However, in exchange, I would like YOU to concede the point that Pashtuns are a bit crazy when it comes to guns, and they use heavy artillery against their neighbors, opposing clans, etc. So yes, there was benefit from this gun-toting culture (repulsing the Russians), but there is great harm in it too (fueling intense feuds that turn into tribal warfare).

You honestly think the Afghan Mujahids could fight off the USSR and hold their own against NATO if it weren't for their gun-savvy red-neck culture? That's their life and blood, and it's the reason they've never been conquered.

I'm going to grant you this point. But the key question is: how is that relevant to America? Unlike Afghanistan, America has a very strong military, and there is no need for individuals to wield arms at all. There is no fear of Russia attacking, and even if they do, the army can repulse them without the help of random militia men.

So I have conceded your point, but I say that it is irrelevant.

Well as part of the background check you should be required to receive like 3-6 months of safety/target training until you pass the course. And some guns are real easy for even beginners to use. But to use assault weapons you should have at least a couple years of training. It's all relative.

So you think assault weapons should not be banned?

How do you justify this?

You can't say that it's to defend against the Russians, since nobody is attacking America any time soon.

You can't say that it's for self-defense, since which old lady packs an assault weapon in her purse?

So what possible justification is there?

Don't you see how more guns on the streets means more killing? Even with permits and licenses, those guns eventually end up on the streets through osmosis and facilitated diffusion.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

Well as part of the background check you should be required to receive like 3-6 months of safety/target training until you pass the course. And some guns are real easy for even beginners to use. But to use assault weapons you should have at least a couple years of training. It's all relative.

That isn't a good thing dude. Anyone can easily learn to use a gun, assault rifles included... dealing with the stress levels of the situations you'd find yourself needing one in - not so much.

Gun fights don't end well...for anyone involved. Because you have one doesn't guarantee you any kind of safety, it just raises the stakes.


Still, I'm not opposed private citizens possessing firearms. I just think there should be more restrictions on them than there are in the States. Owning one in Canada, the paper trail will lead back to you if you commit a crime with one. Far more importantly, the level of responsibility that comes with owning one is drilled into you.

I think the idea of having extra mandatory training is a good idea, but I think it's important that the people who complete that training understand that they're not some kind of warrior - qualified for combat - afterwards.

And no I dont think it's all relative with assault rifles and pistols; those carrying small guns or big ones, experience a sense of power that needs to be checked. And whether your dead from a 7.62 rifle round, or a 9mm pistol - you're still dead.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

We agree on something!

Yeh. ...I wasn't going to say anything.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by Variable

Still, I'm not opposed private citizens possessing firearms.

Why not give citizens the right to use non-lethal weapons? Stun guns have come a LONG way. You can zap the crap out of someone now. Why the need for a gun?

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

There is rampant violence in many major cities throughout America. That in itself justifies banning guns.

No city in America is a war zone. People don't kill each other at the drop of a hat here. It happens, yeah, but even in the most dangerous areas of America (again, small pockets) the per capita murder rate is something like 40/100000. I guarantee you it's worse than that in many places in the world, and was probably much much worse in the past as well.

Further, banning guns doesn't really address the root of the problem in those areas. The root of the problem is cultural and economical.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

You can't just ban guns in one district and not another, because how hard would it be for someone to go to the other district to buy a gun? Therefore, to prevent violence in one part of the country, it is worth it to ban guns in another part of the country..especially since guns serve no function at all. What do you need a gun for? If you want it for hunting or target practice, then I do think those facilities should be allowed; you just don't get to take the guns home with you when you leave those closely guarded places.

Substitute "district" with "country" and "country" with "world." You don't get to use your own gun for hunting? Who would regulate that? Where would the guns be kept?

So what you're proposing is that not that guns should be banned, but that guns should be kept only in the hands of the government. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Certainly not very Amriki of you

Originally Posted by Jaysh

It's not strange at all, nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is the case. People who have seen their loved ones die from guns are more likely to call for stricter gun control.

That's a product of human illogic. It makes no sense to blame an inanimate implement wielded by a murderer for someone's death, instead of the murderer.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Anyways, your argument is like saying that alcohol sales were highest during Prohibition, so hence, we should not ban alcohol. Or other silly arguments like that. The reason Prohibition didn't work was because they had pansy penalties for bootleggers. If they implemented Saudi style of justice, and gave swift death penalties to bootleggers, then I assure you that alcohol could be eliminated from the face of America.

Alcohol sales weren't highest through Prohibition, but I can believe that the profit probably was pretty high. But that's irrelevant. The problem is that you're viewing this very myopically. You're saying if Saudi style justice was implemented on a gun ban, there would be no gun problem.

Doesn't it make much more sense to implement Saudi style justice for murder and armed robbery?

Finally, the biggest hole in your argument is that Saudi Arabia has very little crime.. and relatively lax gun control laws. That illustrates that gun violence can be curbed effectively without banning guns.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

The reason gun control in America may never work is if they continue using their pansy system. If you elect me president, I will just administer the death penalty to those who own guns illegally. You will see the solution solved soon enough.

See above. It makes much more sense to use the death penalty as a deterrent by executing those who use guns in the course of crime, not those who own guns.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

I was watching "Gangland" just yesterday, and some gangsta in LA said that they are working hard to make it almost as bad as Afghanistan. So they are working at it.

Haha.. as if some gangbanger on the street has any real idea what Afghanistan is like?

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Imam Ahmekhboli al-ashbariskani

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Actually, I think some people say that the constitution only allows it to militias. At least that's what Mr. Colbert said today on his show!

No, the intentions of the American "Founding Fathers" were pretty clear in allowing guns for the people in order to keep the government from becoming excessively oppressive. Militias in those times weren't state regulated, btw.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Like I said, this is the case if you have a pansy system of justice. If you strictly enforce a no gun law, you can do away with the problem. But it must be done Saudi style, not pansy style. (And yes, I know Saudi has one of the most lax standards for gun control, but then look at their crime rate; it's the lowest in the world, so they don't need such laws.)

Damn, I didn't even see this before I wrote what I wrote above. So you basically destroyed your own argument without my having to. Why does Saudi Arabia have low crime rates? BECAUSE THEY IMPLEMENT JUSTICE FOR THOSE WHO COMMIT CRIMES. Again, banning guns doesn't address the root of the problem.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

If one group of people really needs their guns taken away, it is the Pashtuns! They use their guns to kill others in their petty feuds. This is a *fact*. And they use ridicolous firepower--stuff used by armies--against their neighbors!

HAHAHA

I'd like to see the Pakistani government TRY to take away the guns of the Pathans. Also, as Good Ol Jr pointed out, without the Pashtun gun culture, Afghanistan would be a Communist state today.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

What do you pro-gun people (Six Pak and Good Ol) think about heavy guns, such as AK's and semi-automatics, etc? (I don't really know much about guns, so I'm just pretty much listing the guns I've heard on tv.)

Do you think ALL guns should be allowed?

I don't understand the argument for banning semi-automatic weapons. Most guns nowadays are semi-automatic. Do people want to go back to the days of muzzleloading or bolt action rifles? Fully automatic weapons are already heavily restricted in the US.

A semi-automatic AK-47 is functionally the same as any hunting rifle. (Full auto is a different story).

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Anyways, I think I will get a tank to defend my family. Just park it in my garage next to my Praxis, and then every time some bad guy tries to break in the house, I'll just hop right in and blast him to pieces.

Did you ever wind up getting the Praxis? I recommend getting it with the Deontologic transmission and the turbocharged Buttress. Put it on 20" adducers.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

Why not give citizens the right to use non-lethal weapons? Stun guns have come a LONG way. You can zap the crap out of someone now. Why the need for a gun?

What good is a stun gun if the other person has a gun, or even any other ranged weapon?

[ChotooMotoo]

The Soviets left Afghanistan a while ago. The arguments for Afghanistan and the heavy weaponry can't be applied to the Pakistani tribal areas/NWFP. Afghanistan also had a LOT of help in the weapons department from the US and other outside players. If the US hadn't intervened, it would have been a communist state regardless of the gun culture. Of course, it wouldn't have been communist for long. I don't believe that losing the Afghan war was the straw that broke the camels back for Soviet Russia, a lot of factors led to the break-up of the Soviet Union.

A big problem with guns is that people want to take the law into their own hands. While you could argue that people could try that with any weapon, firearms are more deadly, and it doesn't take nearly as much skill to kill someone with a gun compared to a lot of other weapons. A friend of our friend got killed walking across the street in Peshawar because he was walking too slowly. This guy got p'o'd, pulled out a gun, and shot the kid, killing him. The kid had epilepsy, and he was having a fit, he couldn't walk any faster.

Too many guns + too little self control = disaster.

I don't know what I think of the idea that since it's impossible to teach self control, we have to accept gun violence as inevitable, and it's the price we pay for our freedom to own guns.

[bravotwozero]

Many states in the US have capital punishment, but that hasn't worked as a deterrent against murder here.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by bravotwozero

Many states in the US have capital punishment, but that hasn't worked as a deterrent against murder here.

The way the US implements capital punishment and the way Saudi Arabia implements it are worlds apart. Also, as I said, cultural and economic factors play a role.

[Timbit]

All guns should be ba