DRC - Digital reality crew logo
DRC Forum | Register | Log in | Forum help | Search

Guns?


DRC Forum
» General Discussion
    » Business & Politics
        » Guns?
            » Page 1 of 1

  Post new topicReply to topic

Author Message
|DRC| Syntax






Friday, July 27 2012, 17:00:33 #44040     Guns?


I knew it would happen and Guns are "under fire" again after the Colorado shooting. Of course it's the fault of the gun's that James went in and killed those people and wounded the rest, right?

I'm personally all for guns and own a couple myself. USA Today says I'm in league with the Devil apparently because of it.

Any opinions on it?
_________________
The truth only hurts the weak minded.
Profile | Send PM | AIM
 
Sponsored Ad






Today #     Sponsored Ads


WWW
 
|DRC| Wartex






Friday, July 27 2012, 17:56:24 #44041     


The problem with guns is most "legit" dealers are shady ass motherfuckers and sell to psychos.
_________________

Profile | Send PM | WWW | AIM | YIM | MSN | SKYPE | ICQ
 
|DRC| Syntax






Friday, July 27 2012, 20:16:04 #44042     


I agree, I made all of my purchases (4) at big retailers. Academy/Cabela's.

I really don't want to support any local stores. (mainly cause they're assholes, and they're mainly racists hicks since I still live in south Texas....)
Profile | Send PM | AIM
 
|DRC| Wartex






Saturday, July 28 2012, 23:34:33 #44043     


I don't like powder-actuated guns because it's an ancient technology. For me it's high powered airguns all the way. You can buy .454 rifle that does 2000 feet per second which is 600 m/s - higher than gunpowder handguns, almost no maintenance and you can pump the air in in the field. Next choice is coilguns and last is railguns, but we don't have the energy density needed yet to make railguns portable.

In the video below the RG is firing at 8200 fps. The projectile kill range is over 100 miles (160 km). At 1800 fps this will just melt thru most armours because of heat due to deformation. Of course if human was hit with a 3kg projectile at 8k fps you will just explode into blood dust pretty much like in quake.


Link on YouTube
Profile | Send PM | WWW | AIM | YIM | MSN | SKYPE | ICQ
 
|DRC| Syntax






Sunday, July 29 2012, 22:43:37 #44044     


Portable rail guns are actually quite horrifying... (Kinda like that crappy movie Eraser)

The US Navy is apparently still tinkering with their Ship based railgun idea; which would lead into some weird fiction zones of warfare.

64 megajoules?


Link on YouTube
Profile | Send PM | AIM
 
|DRC| Iceman






Tuesday, July 31 2012, 22:21:09 #44046     


Your asking for opinions on gun so here is mine. Before I get into my opinion I just want to say that this is not to trash talk anyone or 'offend' anyone.

I always find it interesting when people talk about guns as if it is a 'right' and not a 'privilege' to own them. Logically if we look at guns in general, the answer is right quite simple, but over the years people (especially in the USA from what I have read) have become accustomed to owning them, and defend their ownership of them which is normal human nature.

Over the years I have heard a number of arguments from both pro and anti gun activists. Coming from a family that hunts and growing up with guns (even shooting them myself when I was younger) I am quite familiar with them and both sides of the argument. As an independent thinker I made my mind up based on facts, what I have learned, and just simple logic.

Just a few general non-partisan questions to ask ourselves:

What is the purpose of a gun? Is this purpose useful in today's day and age? Why?
What actions and/or functions does it do? What is the end result?
Do these actions help society as a whole? Why or why not?
Do civilians need them? Why?
If you were to carry one, would you use it? When would you use it? Are you prepared for the consequences of using one?

These are just a few of several thousand questions that can be asked and if a person really thinks about the answers in a rational (non-emotional) way they usually end up at the same conclusion.

I've heard the 'It's not the gun, it's the person' statement more times than I can count. The reality of it is that if guns are available, and not strictly controlled more people will have access to them. It's just the law of percentages - the more people that have access to them, the more opportunity there is for someone to use them. Perhaps, not what they 'should' be used for, but still use them, none the less. Even when guns have strict controls there is always the nut case that will get one and run around like a crazy person shooting random people, so my question is 'Why promote the possibility of more people doing the same?"

Perhaps they should allow civilians to buy and drive tanks on the streets with their barrels loaded? Why not? I don't see what harm could come of it because it's not the tank, but the person driving it. Well, since the government doesn't allow tanks to be freely driven around with their guns loaded, we rarely see such an occurrence (although I do recall one being stolen and creating some chaos before the guy was shot by the Police). This is an extreme example, but the same logic applies.

The same logic could be applied to cars. Can you imagine if the government came out with a new law where every 10 year old could get a license to drive a car? Imagine thousands of tons of vehicle moving around the streets at high velocities with a kid that can barely reach the pedals. How many people do you suppose would be killed? Restrictions and regulations are put into place for a reason. Personally, I think the current age of 16 is too young for teens to have a license. Most are too full of themselves and piss and vinegar to be responsible behind the wheel of a couple tons of metal. More often than not they are more worried about looking 'cool' than being 'responsible'.

In today's day and age, they are simply not needed, unless they are for the military, or policing. Times are changing, and humanity should be progressing forward instead of remaining back in the wild west.

Just my 2 cents.
Profile | Send PM
 
|DRC| Syntax






Wednesday, August 1 2012, 00:02:10 #44047     


One major point you bring up. The law of percentages. They have a complete gun ban in the UK. Their violent crime rate spiked;and is overall higher than our own. (This ranges from purse snatching up through murder). If you know your victim won't have a gun; and maybe you do....what's to make you think twice?

You also stated another extremely important fact: The crazed bastards will still get a hold of them. Someone who wants to use them for a crime, will find a way to get one or several. The status quo would become "Let them kill anyone they want and take anything they want until they get bored of the police stops them" (Which is actually what happened with James Holmes, even though law enforcement supposedly responded in 90 seconds, 12 people still died)

For every one crazy person that goes around shooting people seemingly for no reason; there are likely hundreds of gun owners (Handgun or otherwise) that don't. For every one idiot (well 50% of drivers are female ROFL ) driver, there are hundreds that aren't. (Texas driving laws changed recently too, it's tighter; driver's ED courses are REQUIRED for any one to get a license now, kinda annoying)

Another thing not really mentioned; is of course as everyone knows. Media portrayal. Everyone heard about James Holmes, right? Who heard about the 80yr man that drew his firearm, and fired on an armed robber at a diner? (Crime completely prevented) or anyone other "sheep dog" that used their concealed firearm to prevent a crime? Zero. (There are more of them, than there are crazy people shooting up places, excluding random gang crime)

Another silly point, is numbers. A fun fact; the registered number of HUNTERS (not all gun owners) in some states rivals the number of men in most countries' armies. Imagine if some idiotic nation decided "Hey let's go invade the US" I really can't even imagine them getting through most of the Southern States. (Totally glorifying that but still)


Ofcourse, I wholly respect all opinions. I simply think A)Banning firearms/handguns from civilians is in fact unconstitutional and B)Handing over any type of "Gun Control" to a body like NATO for our entire country, is kinda...just stupid and C)We totally need portable rail guns.
Profile | Send PM | AIM
 
|DRC| Iceman






Wednesday, August 1 2012, 19:59:29 #44048     


It's always interesting to me to read the 'reasons' or 'mentality' behind the comments of someone supporting guns. The general mentality reminds me of something a neanderthal (not referring to you as being one, but rather the mentality would quite similar in nature) would use.

Quite honestly I am not familiar with the crime rate of the UK, so I can't really comment on something I am not familiar with, but if what you say is true, have you considered the differences in culture, and geography there as compared to other countries. First off it is quite well known that port cities are high in trafficking guns, drugs and anything else they can smuggle. Just an observation, but England is an Island, which would have A LOT of ports (i.e. all the way around the Island). If your referring to the UK, then you would including Ireland and the infamous IRA which I think everyone in the world is familiar with their works, not to mention that they are also Islands with many port cities as well. I don't know how much they contribute to the murder rate in the UK, but I'm willing to bet it is a fair amount.

You mentioned an interesting point about 'constitutional rights'. If it was a constitutional right to go out and shoot someone without reprisal would you do it just because you 'could'? Keep in mind that the US Constitution was implemented back in the late 1700's. Not sure when it was amended for gun ownership or if it was in the original document (not my area of expertise as I am thankfully not American), yet people always seem to refer back to it. I guess people still think the same way as they did back in the late 1700's? The last time I checked it was the year 2012 (over 300 years later).

If everyone put their energy towards something useful like educating themselves, and trying to do something useful with their lives to contribute toward society instead of trying to defend an over a century old mentality, maybe society could progress forward.
Profile | Send PM
 
|DRC| Syntax






Wednesday, August 1 2012, 21:46:49 #44049     


Eye for an eye is indeed of neanderthal reasoning, it is however a basic principle for survival.


Uk referred mainly to simply England. These violent crimes didn't always involve guns (mostly without actually) it's the simply fact that if you're bigger and stronger than you're victim, you've nothing to fear. If you're afraid an old lady is packing a revolver, you may think twice about trying to corner her in a dark alley, no?


The constitutions is indeed old; and it did mainly refer to rifleman, because the US was build on, fought for; and maintained, by rifleman. To take away the right of the citizens who originally fought back and freed themselves is almost ludicrous; no matter what age it is. It being a right to go out and shoot someone however is quite an inane and silly example to try and use...

The better question is, who would sit and fight about the 300 year old document, if people weren't so preoccupied with trying to take away that simple right? We've existed this long owning these tools...why change now?
Profile | Send PM | AIM
 
|DRC| Blackshark






Thursday, August 2 2012, 07:35:44 #44050     


I've taken some time to collect my thoughts on this.

First of all i would say that firearms are appealing to humans because of our inner child. We occasionally like to break and destroy things. It gives pleasure and freedom. That said, firearms are not in any way the right tool or concept to promote security in a society.

Just to put this in numbers. There are 2,500,000+ people incarcerated in the U.S. which is no. 1 worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_rate
Policemen in Germany do carry firearms but the use of them is so rare that it occasionally gets in the news when they do.


I've been in most European countries, and of the top of my head i do not know any which permits citizens to carry firearms. In none of them i was at any time afraid to go some place or being aware, notified that some places should be considered dangerous to outsiders or whatever.

The one time when i was in the U.S. (business trip to EA LA headquarters) i got clear information beforehand where i shouldn't go.
I am not implying that it isn't safe to go outside, but when you compare it to the contrast of Europe it kind of is.

Also can you please explain to me the concept behind deterrence and safety in possibly having a gun and still not get gunned down by some lunatic just because he felt like it?
Profile | Send PM | MSN | SKYPE | ICQ
 
|DRC| Syntax






Thursday, August 2 2012, 09:07:44 #44051     


How do you promote security in society? A single force that has all the weapons and is omnipotent so they're always there to protect you? Impossible. It's too late to say "We've completely cleaned up the streets, everything will be fine forever".

Number of people incarcerated overall isn't exactly helpful. We have some of the most absurd laws and punishments. (Getting more time for selling weed than for murdering someone will keep a lot of small time crooks imprisoned for a long time)

Just because no one promotes that lack of safety in certain general areas; doesn't mean they don't exist. Most other countries use tourism as an economic gain (though so does LA) so why would they promote having "bad areas". 90% of big cities in America are already considered "bad places" thanks to Hollywood productions.


It's quite easy to understand the concept; we've all played Q3. If you spawn with just the default weapon, and no armor; you're not going to try and track down Wartex who probably has the maps entire arsenal and red armor. You don't know that he has it, but just the thought deters from you from doing so right away.

If you're in a place, where you know many civilians are "permitted/qualified" to carry a concealed weapon, you're more than likely going to be a lot more cautious about simply going out and committing a robbery/burglary.

Though you again mentioned the "lunatics". I've already pointed out that this variable is not something you can create a blanket statement for. If someone in England wakes up and decides he want to shoot up an area, guess what? Nothing is going to stop him from doing so. No gun law will stop him, no ban, nothing; he'll find what he needs and do it.

EVEN if these same lunatics don't have access to GUNS, they can find other means. There are so many other deadly concoctions people can make in the comfort of their home just by going to the cleaning closet. If this person is crazed enough to go out and shoot people; why wouldn't they be crazed enough to do that if they don't have access to a gun?

Now, I'll go back to James again; I seriously think it was misstep in the system that even allowed him to do what he did. Why in the fuck does ANY civilian need access to TEAR GAS? I can't think of a single reason behind that. If we're allowed to buy it, we should have to register into some kind of system where they can run more checks and find out what the hell you need it for. He bought most of his arsenal ONLINE as well; how did that get missed? Buying an AR15 and Tear Gas at the same time should have raised many red flags.

Also the theater he went in and and committed this act in? Didn't allow any weapons; no concealed weapons of any kind are allowed. Ergo, no one there, had any means to return fire on James. For a guy in med school, I bet he was smart enough to take that into consideration.

Also, on that topic; don't think I'm someone defending our "Right" to own automatic rifles and AR15/SKS rifles. I'm only truly defending my "Right" to own and carry a handgun. I've been considering building one, but that's for nothing more than the fun of actually building it myself and for plinking later on.


This clearly nothing more than a difference in culture. I was born into a "bad area" and spent most of my life getting out of such places; and live in Texas. (Some of the most lax gun laws in any of the states) Simply living in America makes you more predisposed to firearms than most European countries. (Simply because our government likes to stick their nose in other people's business and keeps us at war nonstop. And again Hollywood glorifying gunplay.)

....and guys....portable.....railguns...
Profile | Send PM | AIM
 
|DRC| Iceman






Wednesday, August 8 2012, 22:24:04 #44055     


|DRC| Syntax wrote:
Eye for an eye is indeed of neanderthal reasoning, it is however a basic principle for survival.


Uk referred mainly to simply England. These violent crimes didn't always involve guns (mostly without actually) it's the simply fact that if you're bigger and stronger than you're victim, you've nothing to fear. If you're afraid an old lady is packing a revolver, you may think twice about trying to corner her in a dark alley, no?


The constitutions is indeed old; and it did mainly refer to rifleman, because the US was build on, fought for; and maintained, by rifleman. To take away the right of the citizens who originally fought back and freed themselves is almost ludicrous; no matter what age it is. It being a right to go out and shoot someone however is quite an inane and silly example to try and use...

The better question is, who would sit and fight about the 300 year old document, if people weren't so preoccupied with trying to take away that simple right? We've existed this long owning these tools...why change now?


I have been away for the last 5 days so I did not see your reply. If I am understanding this correctly your comparing people involved in a war to every day civilians? I have to admit that I am a little lost to find a comparison between the two.

You mentioned that it would be insane and silly to go out and shoot someone? Just wondering, why your definition of 'insane' or 'sane' is for that matter? Personally I think it's pretty silly and border line insane to carry a gun around at all times. When I think of someone carrying a gun around with them on a regular basis, I immediately think of an immature child (specifically a boy) who enters a pissing contest with another boy just to see who can piss farther (i.e. my gun is bigger, carries more rounds, will shoot farther, is more shinny, and scares people more than yours). In my honest opinion its all about ego. Granted everyone has an ego, but ego accompanied by someone upset, or not thinking with a clear head, and a gun equals someone dying and someone going to prison. It might sound cool to say 'I carry a gun.' or even that you know how to use one, but once the trigger is pulled, there is no turning back and bullets have no mind of their own or any forgiveness. Most situations can be avoided by using one's brain and talking your way out of it. Not all of course, but if a person has enough common sense they wouldn't put themselves in a situation where they would need to get themselves out of to start with (i.e. walking through a park late at night etc;). If I was worried about going outside my house and getting shot, the first thing I would do is move to a place where I felt safe.

About the 300 year old document. Just an observation, but from my point of view I think things are A LOT different than they probably were 300 years ago. There are more reasons than I can count why old documents should be updated, but yet they linger on. One quick one that comes right into my mind without even thinking is the basic need of food. In those times most people had farms and grew their own crops, they (meaning the majority of men in that period) hunted live game for food and not for sport like they do today. Sure, so people still do hunt for their food, but how often to do they hunt? I think you will find that even the avid hunters will find themselves buying a steak from the grocery store instead of spending days/weeks hunting live game. If they don't buy meat from the grocery store, then they are either vegetarians or they must not have a job because they would need all of their time to hunt. If civilization was as it is today 300 years ago, I highly doubt any educated person would support what was written then. The problem is that Governments are either not smart enough to recognize things have changed or just haven't bothered to change it, but yet people continue to be brought up with these so called 'rights' in their mind.

You may not realize it, but people in general are 'programmed' (e.g. psychology term) from the time they are children. I would highly recommend that you read 'Virus of the Mind' by Richard Brodi. The book talks about the 'Science of the Meme' (pronounced similar to 'beam'). It might give you a different perspective on things, and/or even life in general.

Just some 'food' for thought.
Profile | Send PM
 
|DRC| Iceman






Wednesday, August 8 2012, 22:41:49 #44056     


|DRC| Blackshark wrote:
I've taken some time to collect my thoughts on this.

First of all i would say that firearms are appealing to humans because of our inner child. We occasionally like to break and destroy things. It gives pleasure and freedom. That said, firearms are not in any way the right tool or concept to promote security in a society.

Just to put this in numbers. There are 2,500,000+ people incarcerated in the U.S. which is no. 1 worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_rate
Policemen in Germany do carry firearms but the use of them is so rare that it occasionally gets in the news when they do.


I've been in most European countries, and of the top of my head i do not know any which permits citizens to carry firearms. In none of them i was at any time afraid to go some place or being aware, notified that some places should be considered dangerous to outsiders or whatever.

The one time when i was in the U.S. (business trip to EA LA headquarters) i got clear information beforehand where i shouldn't go.
I am not implying that it isn't safe to go outside, but when you compare it to the contrast of Europe it kind of is.

Also can you please explain to me the concept behind deterrence and safety in possibly having a gun and still not get gunned down by some lunatic just because he felt like it?


Agreed. I lived in Sweden for almost 2 years, and used to walk home after my work very early in the morning, and never once did I feel threatened. From listening to Americans talk over the years, and US Media it seems that the general population support guns. To this day it is beyond me why this mentality still exists.

Syntax - Just to add to Blackshark's question about deterrence, another question for you. Is it considered to be 'ok' to shoot at someone if you feel threatened even if there are innocent by-standards in the area? If the shot kills an innocent person are they just a casualty of war?
Profile | Send PM
 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Optimized with phpBB SEO
Questions? Contact us at fubar_54-198-23-251@wartex.net