A question for those who are pro-guns and U.S. citizens ONLY

[archelios]

So I am making this after seeing the heated discussion on my other thread http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...n-agree/page28

Please, if you are anti-gun, do not comment. Your comments are not welcome in this thread, though I do respect your opinions. I just don't want this thread derailed. If you have a problem with it start a new thread, but please leave this one alone. I am not pushing my ideas on you, I am just trying to pose a question to those with similar views to my own.

So...
I am a college student from New Jersey (to dispel any "redneck" notions from people who may dislike the south). I am personally in favor of people who are over 18 with no criminal record being able to own guns.

The limitations I believe in are no automatics, no armor piercing rounds, and no hollow points. Beyond that, I believe everyone should be able to own guns not violating these criteria within their homes. Where my views differ from many pro-gun proponents is that I have issues with concealed carry outside the home (except for shooting ranges and designated hunting grounds).

I do believe that, while every man and woman has a right to defend his/herself, mistakes can be made which result in death.

Here is an idea of mine, and I want to see if this is a compromise that you all would hypothetically make. What if handguns were allowed outside the home, granted they were loaded with non-lethal rounds. Not rubber bullets, something with stopping power, but something that is unlikely to cause the target to die from impact or bleed out. Perhaps a wider bullet that intentionally crumples on impact to cause enough damage to put someone in the hospital briefly, but not enough to cause serious damage unless hit directly in the head (which should be avoided).

I support the right to protect oneself, but I also know that passion is a greater force than reason in our species, and sometimes we go too far, even if it is for the right reasons.

So, pro-gunners, is this something that you would consider? It is totally hypothetical and nebulous, I know, but is it worth considering? Hit me

[obdigore]

So... you want only US citizens AND people who are pro-guns to comment on the thread, AND you want to know if those people are willing to allow their current ammunition to be replaced with less-lethal rounds?

I qualify under both of your 'requirements', and I say hell no.

[Badpaladin]

Rubber bullets would effectively make whoever is breaking into your home want to get the hell out.

Now as far as using the gun in public to shoot (and possibly kill) some maniac who's killing other people, it probably won't be that effective. I think the question that should be asked is:

Is it worth it to have deadly ammunition for those special cases?

[archelios]

Rubber bullets would effectively make whoever is breaking into your home want to get the hell out.

Now as far as using the gun in public to shoot (and possibly kill) some maniac who's killing other people, it probably won't be that effective. I think the question that should be asked is:

Is it worth it to have deadly ammunition for those special cases?

There is rarely a perfect solution to any problem. Do you think deadly ammunition is worth it? I'm not disagreeing, I'm purely curious in what you guys think.

[Splatter]

I'm not a US citizen or living in the USA, but I am a gun owner. I would oppose the use of less lethal ammunition. The reason is smaller calibre rifles, such as .22's, are able to kill more efficiently and humanely with a hollow point round. Using less lethal solid point rounds makes the animals death unecessarily longer and more painful. The same goes for larger calibres and larger game. The hollow or soft point rounds are there to make sure the animal dies as quickly as possible.

The issue of US gun laws and who can own a gun is a completely different issue.

[Mormolyce]

Here is an idea of mine, and I want to see if this is a compromise that you all would hypothetically make. What if handguns were allowed outside the home, granted they were loaded with non-lethal rounds. Not rubber bullets, something with stopping power, but something that is unlikely to cause the target to die from impact or bleed out. Perhaps a wider bullet that intentionally crumples on impact to cause enough damage to put someone in the hospital briefly, but not enough to cause serious damage unless hit directly in the head (which should be avoided).

Why not just a baseball bat then?

[Kivimetsan]

Pro gun Aussie here, although our laws suck in contrast to the US and its not a right, its a privilege to own a gun here, which blows, but still one of the most armed countries on the planet.

Anyway, where in your constitution does it say you can only have certain types of firearms and certain types of ammunition? It explicitly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Allowing people to only have rubber bullets infringes on that liberty, especially because you cannot take down a government with rubber bullets, which the 2nd amendment is 'sort of' for, not just for personal defense and the militia.

Taking away the right to use regular ammunition sets the precedence for more regulation and the eventual destruction of the 2nd amendment. Coming from a country with no bill of rights, I suggest you respect them and uphold them, you're so lucky to have them

[Badpaladin]

Allowing people to only have rubber bullets infringes on that liberty, especially because you cannot take down a government with rubber bullets, which the 2nd amendment is 'sort of' for, not just for personal defense and the militia.

That's actually exactly what it's for. Personal defense wasn't really in their minds when they wrote the second amendement, it's just that the USG hasn't really given people any good reason to revolt so it's sort of become the norm.

[brandonsurge]

Most of the time, the site of the gun is a good enough deterrence to make the "robber" or "enemy" flee. In those few moments where it's not however, I have been trained to shoot to kill, not maim. An injured target is usually more deadly, especially when they are not critically or fatally wounded. Having said that, I would absolutely disagree with your idea, although I do enjoy seeing the cogs spinning in some peoples minds.

[Jaed]

It is my right to bear arms, and that is all-inclusive of lethal projectiles. I also support concealed carry, with a permit. A non-lethal projectile negates my purpose of having a gun. If you have a license to carry, it means you have to be a semi-proficient marksman and should be able to shoot without killing. I maintain I have the right to protect myself and mine.
However, as a non-lethal option, maybe a hardened wax bullet, or colibri would work. Dunno what else would work in a real gun.

[Lilfrier]

Yeah, the two above (Kivi and Bad) realize what the Second Amendment is actually for. It's not a simple matter of stopping a burglar or a bank robber or a mass murderer (though those instances are reasonable excuses to use deadly force). The point is to keep the government from establishing a military dictatorship.

If your "compromise," was in-effect, and the government decided it wanted to take away the Second Amendment, what would we do? The military would come in with fully-automatic rifles, with whatever ammo they deem necessary (armor-piercing, or whatever), and we'd be forced to defend our freedom from a fully-armed military with rubber bullets and BB guns. Even some sort of large round meant to only wound would be useless.

The Second Amendment is more about protecting freedom than property. Personal protection is secondary to national defense, and that doesn't mean the military--it means the well-being of our people.

[Lillia]

I have no inherent problem with people being able to own guns. I wouldn't call myself pro-gun, but I wouldn't call myself anti-gun either. I think the best thing to call me is pro-gun control.

Lethal rounds are fine (it's awfully hard to hunt with rubber bullets or your crumple bullets). That said, there needs to be some restrictions and tracking involved.

1) Mandatory training. If you own/buy a gun, you are required to take a gun training course or show a recent (in the past year) certification. This isn't just for concealed carry, but for all guns. Guns are deadly weapons, not toys, and need to be treated as such.

2) A federal register. All guns need to be registered with the state and federal government. They also need to be reported lost or stolen if that happens; right now guns that are used in crimes are often completely untethered to the person who originally bought them and are impossible to trace.

3) You need to expand your restricted list. People with severe mental illnesses (paranoid schizophrenia, for example), domestic violence records, or just general violent criminal records need to be prohibited from owning guns. These people need to be part of a database that is accessible across the country. There does need to be an appeals process if someone is denied, but it needs to be a real hearing, not a rubber-stamp one way or the other.

4) Close gun show loopholes. Mandatory background checks are good things. The ability to walk into a gun show and buy any weapon on sale with cash and no background check is unacceptable.

5) I know you said this, but no weapons designed for killing lots of people really quickly. No automatic weapons, no extended magazines, no hollow points, and no armor piercing rounds. No sniper rifles (yes, I have ex-military friends who own military grade sniper rifles. They're legal. They really shouldn't be).

6) No guns in places where they don't belong. No guns in federal or state buildings, courthouses, town halls, schools, or bars. No guns at political rallies or protests. Any time tempers may be running high, disagreements are likely, political figures are present, children are present, and/or alcohol is present, guns have no place.

[archelios]

It is my right to bear arms, and that is all-inclusive of lethal projectiles. I also support concealed carry, with a permit. A non-lethal projectile negates my purpose of having a gun. If you have a license to carry, it means you have to be a semi-proficient marksman and should be able to shoot without killing. I maintain I have the right to protect myself and mine.
However, as a non-lethal option, maybe a hardened wax bullet, or colibri would work. Dunno what else would work in a real gun.

Wouldn't that melt?

[Misfit852]

That's actually exactly what it's for. Personal defense wasn't really in their minds when they wrote the second amendement, it's just that the USG hasn't really given people any good reason to revolt so it's sort of become the norm.

This is where it falls apart though, back in the day the army had access to similar weapons technology to the civilians and a militia uprising would stand a fighting chance. Fast forward to today, a consumer with a handgun vs a..... missile for instance, or a tank, or a marine, or a jet, or a drone, or a bomber, or a navy seal, or any number of high tech killing machines, and the militia is screwed. The technical and skill level of the government army is so far above what any civ militia could offer.

If the purpose of the second amendment is nullified, isn't the reason to own the guns is equally null? Continuing to own them provides a mere illusion of revolutionary potential.

[Lillia]

Pro gun Aussie here, although our laws suck in contrast to the US and its not a right, its a privilege to own a gun here, which blows, but still one of the most armed countries on the planet.

Anyway, where in your constitution does it say you can only have certain types of firearms and certain types of ammunition? It explicitly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Allowing people to only have rubber bullets infringes on that liberty, especially because you cannot take down a government with rubber bullets, which the 2nd amendment is 'sort of' for, not just for personal defense and the militia.

Taking away the right to use regular ammunition sets the precedence for more regulation and the eventual destruction of the 2nd amendment. Coming from a country with no bill of rights, I suggest you respect them and uphold them, you're so lucky to have them

A common misconception of the Second Amendment. It says "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". Now the 1700s were full of grammatical oddities and random commas, but it looks to me like it's only referring to the right of people IN A MILITIA to keep and bear arms. That's because there was no standing military at the time. The closest thing the US currently has is our National Guard, which is by state and so technically counts as militia. However, the actual constitutional right to bear arms is definitely questionable at best.

[Sapper]

Pro gun Aussie here, although our laws suck in contrast to the US and its not a right, its a privilege to own a gun here, which blows, but still one of the most armed countries on the planet.

Anyway, where in your constitution does it say you can only have certain types of firearms and certain types of ammunition? It explicitly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Allowing people to only have rubber bullets infringes on that liberty, especially because you cannot take down a government with rubber bullets, which the 2nd amendment is 'sort of' for, not just for personal defense and the militia.

Taking away the right to use regular ammunition sets the precedence for more regulation and the eventual destruction of the 2nd amendment. Coming from a country with no bill of rights, I suggest you respect them and uphold them, you're so lucky to have them

Although I am pro-gun, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individuals right to own a gun. Its the right to form an armed militia.

With that being said, in a month my wife and I are moving to Alaska, where we will buy a house and stay when she gets out of the military. When that time comes, I plan on having lots of guns, because I'm going to use them to shoot lots of animals. People fail to realize that there is a reason to have a gun other then shooting people who break into your house and scary kids with hoodies on. Banning guns will do nothing to stop "bad" people from having them, just like banning drugs didn't stop people from using them. Of course innocent people will die, thats life. More people die from car crashes, but I don't see people trying to ban cars.

[Ogretron]

I'm not a US citizen or living in the USA, but I am a gun owner. I would oppose the use of less lethal ammunition. The reason is smaller calibre rifles, such as .22's, are able to kill more efficiently and humanely with a hollow point round. Using less lethal solid point rounds makes the animals death unecessarily longer and more painful. The same goes for larger calibres and larger game. The hollow or soft point rounds are there to make sure the animal dies as quickly as possible.

The issue of US gun laws and who can own a gun is a completely different issue.

The OP isn't talking about hunting. He's talking about using the non lethal ammo for self defense.

OT - The problem I see is that because it says "non lethal" people will use them in cases where they wouldn't use a real gun. Also if someone knows (or thinks) it isn't real ammo it probably wouldn't scare them as much. It would be too confusing for some and I think it would cause more problems.

[slipn]

Pro gun US citizen and honestly I don't see the point. If you are going to use a gun against another human being there are/should be reasons to pull that gun out...

They have a gun and are trying to hurt you.
There is more than 1 person aka you're getting jumped.

I do not want to simply "hurt" them at that point and give them the ability to strike back. Guns finish what ever a situation is..not prolong them.

All that said you shouldn't kill a human unless forced.

[A dot Ham]

So I am making this after seeing the heated discussion on my other thread http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...n-agree/page28

Please, if you are anti-gun, do not comment. Your comments are not welcome in this thread, though I do respect your opinions. I just don't want this thread derailed. If you have a problem with it start a new thread, but please leave this one alone. I am not pushing my ideas on you, I am just trying to pose a question to those with similar views to my own.

So...
I am a college student from New Jersey (to dispel any "redneck" notions from people who may dislike the south). I am personally in favor of people who are over 18 with no criminal record being able to own guns.

The limitations I believe in are no automatics, no armor piercing rounds, and no hollow points. Beyond that, I believe everyone should be able to own guns not violating these criteria within their homes. Where my views differ from many pro-gun proponents is that I have issues with concealed carry outside the home (except for shooting ranges and designated hunting grounds).

I do believe that, while every man and woman has a right to defend his/herself, mistakes can be made which result in death.

Here is an idea of mine, and I want to see if this is a compromise that you all would hypothetically make. What if handguns were allowed outside the home, granted they were loaded with non-lethal rounds. Not rubber bullets, something with stopping power, but something that is unlikely to cause the target to die from impact or bleed out. Perhaps a wider bullet that intentionally crumples on impact to cause enough damage to put someone in the hospital briefly, but not enough to cause serious damage unless hit directly in the head (which should be avoided).

I support the right to protect oneself, but I also know that passion is a greater force than reason in our species, and sometimes we go too far, even if it is for the right reasons.

So, pro-gunners, is this something that you would consider? It is totally hypothetical and nebulous, I know, but is it worth considering? Hit me

LOL this is kind of ridiculous don't you think.

You want to regulate WHERE a person is allowed to shoot someone when doing so in self-defense?

A bullet that crumples on impact? and doesn't penetrate? what the hell purpose would that serve? I used to make those in Junior High... its called spit wads.

Furthermore, how is that any different than rubber bullets? (which by the way are correctly classified as "less-lethal weaponry" because if it in places like the head or heart can cause death)

To answer your question... NO, its not worth considering.

[Sapper]

The OP isn't talking about hunting. He's talking about using the non lethal ammo for self defense.

OT - The problem I see is that because it says "non lethal" people will use them in cases where they wouldn't use a real gun. Also if someone knows (or thinks) it isn't real ammo it probably wouldn't scare them as much. It would be too confusing for some and I think it would cause more problems.

Unfortunately, he is talking about hunting. Any law passed affecting personal defense weapons will affect hunting weapons as well. Do you really think you are going to walk into a gun store and it'll be like "You can't have real bullets, oh you're using them to shoot animals? Well then here you go, have as much as you'd like."