LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Your stance on weapons law
Pro gun (all guns for self defence) 12 38.71%
Anti gun (no guns for self defence) 9 29.03%
Selective gun (only selected guns for self defence) 4 12.90%
other option 6 19.35%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-10-2019, 02:26 AM   #31
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 303

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 260Reputation: 260Reputation: 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbell View Post
{...}Had the option been available, I'd probably have come down for some guns for self-defense.{...}
It is as selected(only specific or some guns from them all) option.
Quote:
{...}Of course, the best gun for self-defense is a shotgun. Shotguns don't miss.
Minigun also does not usualy miss but both shotgun and minigun are not very practical imho to use cause they are not handy and usualy require close range. Basic handgun user would probably beat shotgun drawer or martial artist will kick it out of hand before you load it and point. Shotguns are effective if they are already pointed at target but so is other weapon.

Last edited by Arcane; 04-10-2019 at 02:27 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old 04-10-2019, 04:14 AM   #32
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,226
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by linus72 View Post
The whole point of the 2nd is that Citizens have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical govt and/or any other who would threaten their life or family's lives etc.
America would be safer for criminals and corrupt govt if Citizens had no guns- that's a proven fact.
Gun ownership isn't about public safety.
At this side of the pond, we don't have a written constitution, but we do also have outdated laws which no longer serve a purpose. Laws which might have made sense, 200 hundred or so years ago, but are of little value today.

When the 2nd amendment was envisaged, the idea of an armed citizenry, or militias, overthrowing a federal backed standing army, may have seemed like sound reasoning - from a people who were still very raw from the being under the yoke of European colonial powers. Perhaps none envisaged the possibility of the militias turning on each other and tearing the country apart.

It's debatable, in these modern times, if a Citizenry armed with an assortment of individual firearms could, in an act of rebellion, take on, not only a modern professionally trained mechanised standing army, with sophisticated weaponry, but the navy and air force as well - not to mention an increasingly militarised police presence... while it might be a nice romantic ideal to cling to - in these times, it's not at all realistic.

We have seen how armed citizen militias fare against government backed forces, in numerous conflicts around the world - we've seen in fact that, even with foreign backing, they tend to fail and the death toll is usually very high.

The reality is, that the gun lobby want to keep their guns, the arms dealers want to sell them and the manufacturers want to carry on making them. Everything else, including the usual 2nd amendment references, are just pretexts for all of this.

Last edited by cynwulf; 04-10-2019 at 04:32 AM.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 04:32 AM   #33
fatmac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Posts: 2,882

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Is America actually safer with gun allowance?
NO!.....because there is always some nutter that will get hold of one & use it inappropriately!
 
Old 04-10-2019, 04:54 AM   #34
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,621

Rep: Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
...
The reality is, that the gun lobby want to keep their guns, the arms dealers want to sell them and the manufacturers want to carry on making them. Everything else, including the usual 2nd amendment references, are just pretexts for all of this.
Spot on!

The NRA even admitted their tactics to a couple of idiots from the "One Nation" party, who honestly thought they could get some funding out of the NRA to change the gun laws here in Oz. So it's pretty clear the only thing the NRA cares about is keeping their guns, and buying as many US politicians as they can to keep the status quo.

And people still fall for their lies...

Amazing.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 06:37 AM   #35
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
The problem with "gun laws" is that the crime created by such laws is one of simple possession - contraband. There is no criminal behaviour involved it is just having a thing that is made unlawful. These sorts of laws are impossible to enforce and one only has to look at drug laws to see this is absolutely true. In fact, with weapons, it's even more problematic because weapons can be made from damned near anything. 3D printers are making that even more readily available so what's next? Outlawing 3D printers? I can make a .22 pistol from a automobile antenna in less than an hour. A shotgun takes roughly 3-4 hours with off-the-shelf innocuous materials. You can't stop gun possession if someone wants one so it is a fail before it even begins and that creates a wide-reaching disrespect for Law in general. Regulation of weapons is an ineffective means of preventing crime and in the process erodes respect for the Law. There are other means that work to reduce or remove the motivation to commit crime that maintain respect and loyalty that basically begins with few and fair laws. There is little worse than a government with far too many laws where everyone is potentially a criminal, especially if there exists an "elite" that can easily circumvent law with lawyers, money, and friends in high places.

Gun laws are a cure that doesn't work and is worse than the disease, especially when it, as usual, is merely a band-aid on a cancerous sore.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 07:05 AM   #36
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 21,281

Rep: Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
It is as selected(only specific or some guns from them all) option.

Minigun also does not usualy miss but both shotgun and minigun are not very practical imho to use cause they are not handy and usualy require close range. Basic handgun user would probably beat shotgun drawer or martial artist will kick it out of hand before you load it and point. Shotguns are effective if they are already pointed at target but so is other weapon.
Spoken like someone who has no experience with weapons; again, don't get your information from YouTube. A minigun misses a LOT, and is near useless for anything but a battlefield. A shotgun is pretty effective out to about 40 yards (36 meters) with shot...and over 100 with a slug. Going to kick it out of my hands at that range??? And you're not going to be loading it..it's ALREADY loaded when you pick it up, if you have it for home defense. And no, a 'martial artist' won't be kicking a pistol out of someones hand too well...again, don't get your information from YouTube or the movies. And you're missing a very obvious point; if you pick up a weapon, you are going to HAVE IT POINTED at someone...otherwise, why bother?

I'm with michaelk and others that echo that sentiment. If you have training and have had a GOOD background check, only THEN should you be allowed to have a weapon. I see far too many people at the gun range who have no business with one...yet there they are. And even most people who can get one aren't going to have the training needed to use them effectively in a pressure situation.

Last edited by TB0ne; 04-10-2019 at 07:34 AM.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 07:28 AM   #37
sevendogsbsd
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2017
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 767

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelk View Post
Not I. Some states have very limited training or almost none at all and target shooting in my opinion does not qualify. It is human nature to believe that we are more capable then we really are and a one on one situation with a bad guy in self defense is quite different then a mass shooting incident. How are the police going to know who are the good guys?

The NRA's statement that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun" in my opinion is a fallacy.
Thinking about this, you make a good point. The shooting proficiency requirements for concealed carry here are not that stringent. They do not factor in tactics either. I have been around firearms for much of my life and am a pretty good shot, but the dynamics of a gunfight are something only seasoned police officers and soldiers ever experience.

I don't agree with the NRA's statement either: they are all or nothing which is not a good position. Has to be compromise at some point.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 07:35 AM   #38
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 21,281

Rep: Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevendogsbsd View Post
Thinking about this, you make a good point. The shooting proficiency requirements for concealed carry here are not that stringent. They do not factor in tactics either. I have been around firearms for much of my life and am a pretty good shot, but the dynamics of a gunfight are something only seasoned police officers and soldiers ever experience.

I don't agree with the NRA's statement either: they are all or nothing which is not a good position. Has to be compromise at some point.
+100 to this.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 07:41 AM   #39
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 303

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 260Reputation: 260Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB0ne View Post
Spoken like someone who has no experience with weapons; again, don't get your information from YouTube. A minigun misses a LOT, and is near useless for anything but a battlefield. A shotgun is pretty effective out to about 40 yards (36 meters) with shot...and over 100 with a slug.{...}
Dude chill. Did i upset you somehow? Wasn't my intention. You seem to only reply to me in a way as if i post something that hits your nerves. And it was just example. That is why i wrote "imho". We each are allowed to have our own opinion. I am not claiming or stating anything as already mentioned just asking situation on streets not on TV and expressing my own opinion like others. And you mentioned training - ANY loaded weapon in TRAINED users hands are equaly devastating not just shotgun. And YouTube is fine, im not using other internet source cause it lacks visual and audio presentation. You really are trying to tell me weapon test videos are fake on youtube? Here is about shotgun accuracy test but it is on not moving target. What happens if target moves? It is still valid information. So please more ontopic.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 08:09 AM   #40
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 21,281

Rep: Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
Dude chill. Did i upset you somehow? Wasn't my intention. You seem to only reply to me in a way as if i post something that hits your nerves.
Yes; your comments about "I'm not a racist, BUT" and crap like that SHOULD upset people. You start a debate about a topic you know nothing about, in a country you've never been to, stereotyping a race of people in the process. And posting YouTube video links to support your opinions doesn't lend you any credibility. You are missing any points I've tried to make to you, either intentionally or not; either way, get out from behind your screen and go out into the world and learn.
Quote:
And it was just example. That is why i wrote "imho". We each are allowed to have our own opinion. I am not claiming or stating anything as already mentioned just asking situation on streets not on TV and expressing my own opinion like others.
You say you're not asking about TV...but post a YouTube link?? Again, you are getting 'opinions' from TV and movies...not really the best places. Try forming opinions based on FACTS, not what you see on TV.
Quote:
And you mentioned training - ANY loaded weapon in TRAINED users hands are equaly devastating not just shotgun. And YouTube is fine, im not using other internet source cause it lacks visual and audio presentation.
And because it is 'visual and audio presentation', it's somehow factual?? Again; get out into the real world and find out for yourself.
Quote:
You really are trying to tell me weapon test videos are fake on youtube? Here is about shotgun accuracy test but it is on not moving target. What happens if target moves? It is still valid information. So please more ontopic.
I am on topic, but it is you that isn't. You are lacking actual, genuine information about a subject you're debating. Your entire argument is based on YouTube videos. Try actually THINKING for yourself; those 'tests'....conducted by whom? Under what conditions? For what purpose?? Are they to get YouTube views, or to actually present information? Does the presenter get $$$/equipment from those vendors for a good test?

I can tell you from VERY personal experience that a shotgun is pretty effective against moving targets, just like ANY weapon is if the person using it can use it effectively.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 08:58 AM   #41
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,621

Rep: Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
The problem with "gun laws" is that the crime created by such laws is one of simple possession - contraband. There is no criminal behaviour involved it is just having a thing that is made unlawful. These sorts of laws are impossible to enforce and one only has to look at drug laws to see this is absolutely true. In fact, with weapons, it's even more problematic because weapons can be made from damned near anything. 3D printers are making that even more readily available so what's next? Outlawing 3D printers? I can make a .22 pistol from a automobile antenna in less than an hour. A shotgun takes roughly 3-4 hours with off-the-shelf innocuous materials. You can't stop gun possession if someone wants one so it is a fail before it even begins and that creates a wide-reaching disrespect for Law in general. Regulation of weapons is an ineffective means of preventing crime and in the process erodes respect for the Law. There are other means that work to reduce or remove the motivation to commit crime that maintain respect and loyalty that basically begins with few and fair laws. There is little worse than a government with far too many laws where everyone is potentially a criminal, especially if there exists an "elite" that can easily circumvent law with lawyers, money, and friends in high places.

Gun laws are a cure that doesn't work and is worse than the disease, especially when it, as usual, is merely a band-aid on a cancerous sore.
While you do have a good point there enorbet, it's not just about actually "stopping" people from doing x, y or z (whatever act it is). It's also about the "deterrent effect", as while yes, some will still break whatever law it is you can think of anyway, let's pick an easy example like murder; in a civilised society, you simply can't have people going around murdering others with absolute impunity - as society wouldn't function if that was allowed. So the only viable option is to have a law that says you can't do that, but of course some will still do that anyway. So where a reasonable argument can be made that [some act] can be considered a serious risk to others [innocent people], then having a law against it/regulating it, it can be justified. Without trying to go off-topic, as far as drugs are concerned, then yes, I would absolutely agree with you that it's a health matter if anything, and there is no need for it to be a criminal matter. But guns can and do pose a risk to others in the wrong hands. But yes, you can't simply ban 3D printers, which does complicate things, agreed.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 09:15 AM   #42
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB0ne View Post
I can tell you from personal experience I've met some of the best people in the worst places, and have been proud to know them. And have been sickened by some of the 'fine people' I've met. And I can also tell you that there is NO common denominator between any of them....you judge people by who they are and what they do, period.

This sums it up nicely.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 04:01 PM   #43
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
@ jsbjsb001 - My point is possession of any contraband (an inert object) cannot be enforced and actually shouldn't be attempted based on it's level of public threat. If you are my neighbor my owning and possessing a firearm in no way threatens you unless some person aims it at you, since any responsible gun owner guards against accidental discharge with trigger locks, storing unloaded, etc. Training includes not pointing a gun at someone unless you fully intend to kill them. Using firearms to scare someone rarely ends well and almost always escalates which is just one reason training involves establishing how serious weapons are. They are no joking matter and require respect and care.

OTOH, ordinary citizens should not be allowed to possess say a weaponized virus or large quantities of radioactive isotopes in their homes because a simple leak could threaten many in addition to the obvious point there is zero value in keeping such a thing since there is no way to deploy it to defend one's home (or any other proper service) as it is subject to the vagaries of things like the wind and/or water. In fact I think that the regulations on governments possessing such things should be far more stringent if anything, but good luck enforcing that. Similarly it really isn't acceptable for individuals to own say an RPG or a 50 Cal. machine gun as there is no right and proper use except long distance mass murder. They and items like them are not practical for home defense. I can't however see any justification for disallowing shorter range weapons that threaten nobody by their mere existence.

I don't think I would have a problem if some community required checkups, in addition to proper registration to mentally sound individuals, to verify that firearms are stored safely so they don't discharge accidentally or are easily accessible by anyone but the owner(s), but beyond that I don't see how it is anybody's business but the individuals. It's never going to be perfect since it would be just as possible to jack up regulations over time so that nobody (or nobody but those of a "certain persuasion") can ever qualify as it is to be far too lax. I think we either expect citizens to behave like responsible adults or we treat everyone like irresponsible children. Which would you prefer?
 
Old 04-10-2019, 04:45 PM   #44
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post
I'd prefer SCUM control over GUN control.

I'd also want the violence that children see stopped.

Saying all that makes little difference. Most people in the US will never die from a weapon. They will happily eat, smoke, drink and drive poorly to their death.

I drive almost an hour to work each way and it's worse than changing targets on a live gun range.
Some interesting facts to back up your comment:


Approx. 610,000 people die from heart disease in the USA each year
Approx. 609,640 people die from cancer in the USA each year
Approx. 480,000 people die from smoking tobacco in the USA each year
Approx. 250,000 people die from Medical mistakes in the USA each year
Approx. 88,000 people die from alcohol in the USA each year
Approx. 80,000 people die from diabetes in the USA each year
Over 70,000 people die from drug overdose in the USA each year
Just under 40,000 people died from guns in 2018
37,133 died from car accidents in 2017 in the USA
2,458 deaths identified between 1999-2010 from allergic reactions (half of them being drug allergies)

That's right folks in the USA you are more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, smoking/tobacco, medical mistakes, alcohol, diabetes and drug overdose then gun violence....Perhaps we should focus our attention on those top seven killers! Almost as many deaths from car accidents and gun violence, perhaps we should ban cars/driving as well. Oh wait, some EU cities are talking about doing that.

Ref:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/diabetes.htm
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-to...se-death-rates
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...medical-errors
http://einstein.yu.edu/news/releases...-main-culprit/
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...acts/index.htm
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...ing/statistics

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 04-10-2019 at 04:47 PM.
 
Old 04-10-2019, 04:57 PM   #45
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
This is interesting, not sure how accurate but interesting none the less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country

So the USA has almost 400 million guns, not counting military weapons, and yet less than 40,000 people die per year from gun violence. That means that 99.999% of guns are lawful and not killing people and 0.0001% are. Yup, I can see why people are so anti gun, that .0001% is frightening.
 
  


Reply

Tags
safety


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dynamic local subnet allowance based on current IP xxmsaxx Linux - Networking 2 10-22-2009 01:18 PM
Trying to avoid bad color gun in old CRT ktvoelker Linux - Software 2 07-23-2005 10:14 AM
disk space allowance? whovian Linux - Newbie 2 07-10-2005 03:11 PM
why gun compiler doesn't work michaelwu Linux - Software 1 04-22-2005 02:50 AM
pcmcia, Mandrake, modules, and a smoking gun oiper Linux - Networking 0 07-26-2004 12:20 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration