GamingUnion.net

1sky1destiny · **December 05, 2011 05:55:07 PM**

(December 05, 2011 05:24:52 PM)Aaron Wrote: I agree with Zero and Asth about carrying guns in public. I only agree with someone's right to possess a gun if the gun is left at home and only used when someone enters your home and refuses to leave after you've told them to several times, and exhibits violent behavior. Telling everyone that they can carry weapons around willy nilly is just asking for trouble.

Out of curiosity, what are our views of how the court system should handle weapon cases? I'm sure we've all heard the term "Shoot to kill, because dead people can't sue". To me, such a phrase existing shows the court's inability to handle this situation properly. The laws need to be clarified, that's for sure. The only question is, how?

To Chloe, Zero, and Aaron, I won't argue with you guys on that one. Each is entitled their own opinion on such a sensitive matter, and I respect that. I live in an area where carrying a weapon is needed from time to time, and that's the reason I have it.

When it comes to the courts and weapon cases, I believe that there's a strict, and very thin line between self defense killings and murder. Sometimes the courts rule correctly, and sometimes they don't. The key to successful self defense hearings is for the self defender to do everything correctly. Call 911. Let them know that you have an intruder/robber/whatever the case may be. Tell them you are armed and are currently holding the criminal until police arrive. Describe what you look like. When police arrive on scene, place your weapon down, get on your knees, put your hands on your head. Police will know immediately who the bad guy is when the defender does things the correct way. And the courts will see that and know how to rule the hearing.

The issue is when the defender has emotion take over, and the attacker either dies or is critically injured, whether it was repeated gunshots, multiple stabbings, or whatever the situation is. There must always be self control, even when the bad guys don't have any. That's what separates the good guys from the bad guys, and that's what the courts look at.

**Kid** · **December 05, 2011 08:11:59 PM**

Hm...I've read a lot of posts here and one important thing that really hasn't been mentioned is whether you believe in taking a life. Cause that's basically how people are arguing it. Some think they need it for protect, others not. And taking a life to protect is a huge issue around the topic of guns...

Colin · **December 05, 2011 09:12:31 PM**

Owning a gun doesn't necessarily mean you have to take a life. Using 1sky1destiny's scenario as an example, sometimes all you need to do is warn the guy off and that'll be enough.

However, I think the moment you pull out the gun, you have to be ready to use it, lethal or non-lethal, it doesn't matter. If the other party has a gun too and you're not ready to pull the trigger first, but he is, then you're in some pretty big trouble.

In the army, when on guard duty (not a war-time scenario) we have protocols to follow. Weapons unloaded, when a suspect is spotted, call him out and approach slowly with weapons raised. On the second halt, load weapon and ready, third halt and the suspect still doesn't listen, fire a warning shot into the sky. When that doesn't work, fire a shot into one of the guy's limbs, no questions asked.

So, not a really good example, but it isn't necessary to take someone's life. However, how many people actually have that kind of discipline and self-control? Does everyone gun owner in America go through this kind of training before purchasing a firearm?

1sky1destiny · **December 06, 2011 09:18:21 AM**

(December 05, 2011 09:12:31 PM)Colin Wrote: Owning a gun doesn't necessarily mean you have to take a life. Using 1sky1destiny's scenario as an example, sometimes all you need to do is warn the guy off and that'll be enough.

However, I think the moment you pull out the gun, you have to be ready to use it, lethal or non-lethal, it doesn't matter. If the other party has a gun too and you're not ready to pull the trigger first, but he is, then you're in some pretty big trouble.

In the army, when on guard duty (not a war-time scenario) we have protocols to follow. Weapons unloaded, when a suspect is spotted, call him out and approach slowly with weapons raised. On the second halt, load weapon and ready, third halt and the suspect still doesn't listen, fire a warning shot into the sky. When that doesn't work, fire a shot into one of the guy's limbs, no questions asked.

So, not a really good example, but it isn't necessary to take someone's life. However, how many people actually have that kind of discipline and self-control? Does everyone gun owner in America go through this kind of training before purchasing a firearm?

Sadly, no. Not every gun owner in America has to go through the necessary training that they desperately need before choosing to carry a weapon. I believe that part of the responsibility of owning a gun and choosing to carry it is to know how to use it correctly in any situation, and to know it part-for-part, inside and out. It is a tool. Someone owning a gun without the proper knowledge and training is like someone purchasing an airplane without first going through aviation school. It doesn't make sense and shouldn't be legal.

And yes, if you have a gun for protection, you better be ready to pull that trigger if the need arises. Like I said before, self control is needed when you're looking down the sights. Having a gun doesn't mean trying to take a life with every draw from the holster; it's to effectively control a situation when the best tool for the job is a firearm. But if you're not ready both physically and mentally to pull the trigger, you should just carry a squirt gun in your pocket, because the real thing will be useless.

**Kid** · **December 06, 2011 11:47:45 PM**

And to put up a scenario...What we've been discussing here for the most part, what I assume, is when there is law enforcement around. It isn't lawlessness...

But I think we need to consider lawlessness, given the way the world is and how there have already been short bursts of lawlessness. Do you think that we'll need guns then, when there is no police force or military force to help you?

Chocolina · **December 06, 2011 11:50:30 PM**

Except it's a plane that fits in your pocket and spews bullets. That's my kind of plane.

eta: re: the lawlessness scenario... I don't really plan for that. The ideal of a "well-armed militia" is just an American thing, I think. I wouldn't bring firearms in my home to prepare for the outside chance that society may collapse. I wouldn't go looking for guns if society did collapse, either, because I don't know how to use them...

Even if there were a zombie apocalypse, I'd stick with weapons that didn't have to be reloaded!

Kioran · **December 07, 2011 08:58:52 AM**

It's proven by many experts that the crow bar is the best zombie survival weapon/tool.

1sky1destiny · **December 07, 2011 09:30:54 AM**

(December 07, 2011 08:58:52 AM)Kioran Wrote: It's proven by many experts that the crow bar is the best zombie survival weapon/tool.

I agree with that! Wink

I've been watching The Walking Dead on Netflix, and the crowbar is EPIC!!! But I would like to run around with a katana, instead. Tongue

Now, back on to the topic... I'm prepared for just about every scenario. My wife does a lot of couponing, to the extent that we get a lot of our groceries for pennies on the dollar. That being said, part of her couponing program which, in the long run saves a boatload of money, is to stock up on certain items when they're at the lowest price of the season. So we have a lot of dry goods stored at all times, not preparing for anything bad to happen; it's just part of her program.

I like to hunt, so I have guns, ammunition, and a bow with a dozen or so arrows. Again, I'm prepared, but it goes along with my normal life as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not a crazy redneck who stores dozens of guns in a homemade bomb shelter in the backwoods; everything we have goes along with daily life.

When it comes to "lawlessness," I can't see anything major happening anytime soon that would be prolonged over a long period of time. There's a very small chance that our society will collapse within this decade if our economies don't recover. If that happens, there will probably be riots and mass looting, and it wouldn't hurt to have a plan on hand to keep your family safe. I think that being prepared for something is great; wishing for something bad to happen so it can go into effect is straight-up madness.

**Kid** · **December 21, 2012 12:02:35 PM**

Gonna bring this thread back since there have been recent developments, and I would love to hear ideas on it.

Currently, there is a lot of pressure for the lost of gun rights to the citizens of the United States ever since the school shooting on December 14, 2012. People are hoping with less guns on the streets that violent gun crimes will lessen. However, the other side argues that with less guns the streets will be more dangerous and will lead to the lost of more rights of the people.

Do you guys think gun laws will change dramatically in the US after this horrible event? Do you think, with the lost of gun rights, the US could be spiraling out of the control and start banning whatever they like, such as violent video games (which I think is a high candidate on the hit list since they get lots of flak for cause mass shootings too), cars because they are dangerous, etc.?

First off, I think America is gonna dramatically change. All this gun control is not gonna do anyone good. The plan to secure schools more without arming teachers is gonna cost taxpayers a lot of cash, and then we have to take into account where all other mass shootings are. Movies theaters, military posts (Fort Hood, where soldiers were not allowed to carry), churches, etc. The cost will be enormous to beef up security and even then, we don't have the manpower to secure all these facilities and patrol the city while we're at it. Having an armed civilian in the crowd can help with this, as shown in the Oregon Mall shooting, where a concealed carry permit holder Nick Meli had a weapon and drew on the shooter, causing the shooter to flee and fire one final shoot, which was a suicide round. Sure, Nick didn't open fire, but the threat of force can intimidate a coward who expected no one to stop him.

Secondly, anyone remember 9/11? After 9/11, what the the government do? We ARMED our pilots. We developed training programs to help the pilots and teach them how to deal with dangerous situations and trained them to use a gun. And we also have an armed federal air marshal in the plane to prevent/stop an attack in the cabin. Have we seen another 9/11 since then?

Last of my points for now is, if the government can ban guns, why not ban all the other dangerous things that can kill people? Video games (which everyone here plays and that lots of media in recent shootings attribute to a reason why people go on rampages, despite the fact there are lots of evidence to the contrary), cars, alcohol, food (already starting to see the US government tell people what they should/should not eat), etc. Once you give up one right, you're telling the government that they can take them all.

That's my rant for now...

**Sam** · **December 24, 2012 02:19:16 PM**

You put across a well considered (and I think typically American) view, Kid. I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you though.

Far be it from me to judge what another country and culture should do, but coming from a country that has never been of the view that the public should carry guns, I guess I can put across a different perspective. Very, very few police in this country carry arms. One of the reasons for this is to do with the balance of power between police and criminals, and something that I believe in quite enthusiastically. Giving guns to police encourages criminals to acquire and use guns so as to even the playing field. Would I feel safer knowing a policeman I walk past in the street or drive past on the road has a machine capable of killing someone? No. In fact I am pleased that the likelihood of a person dying, criminal or not, is reduced.

This is the main reason why I would be opposed to the NRA's suggestion of armed guards in all US schools. Apart from the rather sinister image this would give the American education system overall, I can't actually believe that this would make children any safer. Arming teachers with guns?! I would frankly emigrate from the UK if that were ever to be brought in here. I would not want a gun anywhere near my child's classroom, no matter who was wielding it.

Now I do understand that there is a rather big difference in culture here and that is what makes the issue such a difficult one in the USA. You are constitutionally righteous to own and carry firearms. This puts the balance of power that I mentioned earlier right into the hands of the criminals immediately, which is why you are damn right American cops should carry guns. The difficulty lies in the grey area which arises when a psychopath uses his gun to do something terrible and tragic. And I can't come up with any viable solution. All I know is that I wouldn't want more guns around the place, as I really don't see that solving anything...