PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Kuiper7986 on November 26, 2004, 11:29:39 pm
-
I live about 30 miles away from Los Angeles in Walnut Valley. Anyways I took a train there and then subway, first thing I see is two cops trying to take down some person...then I go outside and took the metrol rail to Chinatown, I see a armored vehicle unloading some money, dang the two dudes have .357 magnums and level II kevlar, first time I seen kevlar in real life and a .357...next I see a cop parked across the street while drinking some coffee, I looked at him and thought to myself, yeah just a standard department issued Baretta 9mm nothing special then I look in his squad car, then I see two shotguns and an M4! I was like damn, I know its LA but they\'re packing some serious heat...then I went to eat at Dim Sum at Empress Pavillion, where Bill Clinton went...
I know its good that they have guns but it also means there\'s probably more trouble, sometimes I wish I were in the UK, the cops don\'t have guns but the sticks...less armed but less crime...anyways yeah that\'s my trip, eat good chinese food, saw lots of guns, saw some crazy parts of LA that most people would be afraid to go near, yeah that\'s my trip...
(Food for thought): Wherever you live how much heat is your police packing to keep you safe and do you feel safe?
EDIT: Oh yeah I also checked out the Foo Chow Restaurant, it\'s the restaurant where they filmed the Restaurant scene for Rush Hour 1.
-
Bweeeh the cops here in Belgium carry around their sticks. They also have a 9mm which is mostly unloaded, just for scaring people off, and they have pepper spray and a taser with em. That\'s all I guess. But hey, there aint much criminality in here, so why would they need to carry and armed gun?
-
In my place guns are banned, so maybe I\'m biased.
If you ban guns, the police doesn\'t need them as well (at least not for standard duty), because all the aggressive nutjobs and small / medium scale criminals will not have guns (and if they do, the police has a convenient reason to lock them up, since having a gun is like screaming \"I\'m a criminal!\"). This in turn enables the police to get hold of them without having to resort to a gun at all, because they can\'t be shot. Therefore, by banning guns, along with tight gun controls, you can decrease the danger of anyone getting seriously hurt. This might sound strange to anyone having grown up with guns allowed, but it\'s a fact that a gun doesn\'t protect you, it just endangers others. Furthermore, if I\'d have a gun, I\'d be pushed to shoot you more quickly and more deadly if I knew you also had a gun, because otherwise you\'d try to shoot me. Thus, having a gun even increases the danger of getting shot.
With guns banned and the ban strictly enforced, the only ones who will have guns will be organised crime (as they can get hold of them and hide them) and special police forces. The first you\'ll not stand any chance against even when holding several guns yourself, and the latter is trained to be able to use the gun appropriately, which will take the burden of deciding whether to shoot someone from the ordinary cop.
There are some things that are just too dangerous to allow them, because they create too much damage when abused. Guns IMO clearly fall into this category.
As for your question: I feel way safer because guns are banned, since it means that I\'m not constantly at high risk of getting shot because someone just feels like shooting someone, or is too stupid to actually hit the one they were aiming for (because a gun, even if held in my very hand, doesn\'t stop the bullet that comes unexpectedly).
-
Hey kuiper dont hesitate to drop by by my house :)
Ya the LA area you went to is pretty scary. Come up the mountains to La Crescenta and pay me and exuro a visit. Our area is a smallish community with no crime or anything.
I think cops should have guns and people shouldnt be able to buy handguns/automatics (though automatics are banned in california). Hand guns have little point but to be conceald. Rifles should be allowd to be sold for game though. Its pretty hrad to kill somone with a rifle unless a sniper, which also should be banned.
-
Originally posted by Efflixi Aduro
Its pretty hrad to kill somone with a rifle unless a sniper, which also should be banned.
Thats because rifles were made around longrange combat. As difficult as it is to track with a handgun at close range imagine how difficult it must be with a rifle.
Also though I personal do not like guns I belive that proper firearms education not gun controll is the answer. Esspecialy in areas like the US where it is far to easy to purchas illegal weapons.
-
Ya O_O
The other day m freind was at a gun store downtown and the guy took him back where he was selling Bearclaws, Brass knuckles, Nunchuks, Morning stars, ninja stars, you name it they had it. Scary....
-
Yeah, when I went to LA a couple months ago, I saw some cops break into some building. They were all armed with their guns out. It was sweet.
But I wouldn\'t mind living there. I like big cities, and only certain parts are really bad. San Diego would be even better though.
-
You can\'t always say that big towns are more dangerous than smaller towns though. The cops in this town do not give a damn about anything that goes on, actually. Once, I was walking down a street and there were two kids in front of me (about 14-15, I would say) smoking a couple of cigarettes and a cop pulled over and asked if they were 18 or older. Of course, they said \"Yes.\" and then, to my surprise, the cop said, \"Ok.\" and went on. What the hell is wrong with that? He should have ID\'d them or something, jeez.
The cops here have 9mm and a new taser that they got. Also, the cops have NO control over this town. Butterfly Knives, ninja throwing stars, and other illegal weapons are in the hands of people, 75% of the people are druggies, and just more shit than the cops can/want to handle.
Oh yea; my town has 6,000 people and the cops can\'t control 20% of the town, which that 20% is elderly. I think the cops here need bigger guns to scare people away. Maybe some Colt .45 or something. ;)
-
Dude where do you live? Thats scary... Get the cops some rocket launchers :)
-
Slaton, Texas. It is outside of Lubbock, Texas if anyone knows where that is. It has over 200k people, so people never notice Slaton; not even the people that live here, really. And, like I said, Colt .45 Pythons will do just fine. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Also though I personal do not like guns I belive that proper firearms education not gun controll is the answer. Esspecialy in areas like the US where it is far to easy to purchas illegal weapons.
To me the only education would be \"1 Do not buy guns 2 Do not use guns 3 Dispose of all the guns you have\"
But i do think you have a point. Weapons are widespread in the usa, a lot of weapon stores (legal and illegal) exist.
Outlawing weapons would not just make every one, especially not criminals, dispose of their weapon or make stores close down. Still it would be a good start.
As a side not: Is your sig about euthanasia?
Seytra made some good points as well. I completely agree with that text.
About where i live, holland, here cops usually carry a gun. Shoot outs between cops and criminals are quite rare, but are unfortunately becoming more common. And we nowadays have an assasination of some gang leader about every year.
Not to long ago what seemed like the entire police force surrounded a house in the hague with every possible weapon at their disposal. The sky was a non enter zone and sharpshooters were all over the place.
The reason for this is that a police group tried to enter the house to arrest the inhabitants for terrorism. The inhabitants (turned out to be 2) threw grenades at the cops.
Pretty cool now its all over, its not something that usual happens here. Except for the three cops that were wounded by the grenades.
Oh and we don\'t allow weapons for the common man. Criminals usually don\'t use guns as well. Its not that we\'re completely safe here or don\'t have crime but the chance of being shot is small.
My granddad however used to posess (illegaly) a stengun, standard equipment of the allies in the woII. Even teached my parent and uncle how to use it, just in case the russians would come.
-
Here, guns are illegal without a shooters (gun club) license and a permit to buy a gun.
Auto and Semiautomatics are banned completely, only the military use them.
Cops usually carry just a standard pistol, but may use something else and wear kevlar if the need arises. It\'s rather low crime here.
I think the public should not be allowed guns, but I think that the police should be allowed, as laws do not often stop people doing what they want.
-
Originally posted by Adeli
I think the public should not be allowed guns, but I think that the police should be allowed, as laws do not often stop people doing what they want.
Take the guns away from the public and take away the publics ability to stand up for/ defend it self.
And no Ionas my sig is not about euthanaisa it is about justice. Think about it this way a criminal is intent on harming/killing an inocent person and you are armed only with a leathal weapon; do you kill the criminal or allow the inocent to suffer?
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Take the guns away from the public and take away the publics ability to stand up for/ defend it self.
Do you actually think that guns would do \"the public\" any good? I don\'t think so. The only scenario would be a civil war, and if one is building up, the public would generally care less for the laws (otherwise it\'d not be a civil war) and secretly get hold of weapons. This would be possible because the government increasingly fails to control the public anyway, and because the public is willing to take the extreme risks that are involved. However, in times of reasonable governance guns don\'t do any good but harm.
This can be seen in all countries that have a civil war. The public most certainly isn\'t allowed guns, but still they have them. Also, even if they were allowed them, the heavy crap they use isn\'t what would be allowed anyway. Furthermore, without proper training, the public isn\'t going to hit anything. Also, they\'d stand no chance against a well armed and armored riot control team.
Therefore, the \"public defense\" issue is nonexistant IMO, and therefore guns can safely be banned.
As for the stores and preexisting guns: if you have tight gun control, you can seize every single gun / ammo that shows up once they\'re illegal, no further reason required. Also, you can fine / lock up the holder. Therefore, you can easily ensure that no guns are imported (by checking the cargo of ships, as is done anyway AFAIK), and by checking stores. It has workes in lots of countries, and they all had guns before the ban, so I don\'t see any reason why the USA would be incapable of this.
There can easily be a grace period and even some compensation for the owners of the guns.
-
Do you honestly think the people of the United States would give up their weapons that easyily?
If the US tried to outlaw firearms we would have civil war for that very reason. And you aparently have not lived in any areas were the local law enforcement cannot be trusted. There are many places in the rural US were the difference between cop and criminal is almost nonexistant. I have had the missfortune of liveing in such a place and many of the people, both good and bad, I have talked to while there can attest to the fact that to make a complaint is to put oneself at great pesonal risk. Also if you take the weapons out of the hands of the populace and the government still has them how are the people to protect their rights?
O an by the way the best kevlar ranks well below steel plate in protection from firearms and a fifty caliber muskett while not likely to penetrate will probably kill the wearer (a modern fifty caliber is much more powerful and very legal in the US)
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Do you honestly think the people of the United States would give up their weapons that easyily?
No, but you could always gradually restrict them to less powerful arms and keep doing so until they\'re completely outlawed. This tactic is employed by governments all over the world for everything the public doesn\'t like, and the public just keeps falling for it.
Originally posted by Hatchnet
If the US tried to outlaw firearms we would have civil war for that very reason. And you aparently have not lived in any areas were the local law enforcement cannot be trusted.
Luckily, no.
Originally posted by Hatchnet
There are many places in the rural US were the difference between cop and criminal is almost nonexistant. I have had the missfortune of liveing in such a place and many of the people, both good and bad, I have talked to while there can attest to the fact that to make a complaint is to put oneself at great pesonal risk.
But did your guns actually do any good with that? If they did, I will admit that there is dire need to clean up the law enforcement department big time before this can be enacted. If they didn\'t, however, it might even be better because there is a chance that the untrustworthy law enforcement might at least have less of a chance of using them as well, if they\'d be restricted for the police as well (which they should be).
It is sad that such places actually exist outside movies. :(
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Also if you take the weapons out of the hands of the populace and the government still has them how are the people to protect their rights?
Well, they are supposed to be protected by the government. If the government doesn\'t want you to have these rights, they could use the method above to remove these rights from you, so you\'d end up defending nothing anyway.
-
Can you honestly belive any of what you just said. some of the dumbest people I know would not fall for that and yes for those people who are forced to defend themselves from the law enforcment guns and other weapons do serve them in their plight. However the greatest weapon of all is not a gun it is not a bomb it is a persons willingness to fight for what they belive in as long as their spirit holds no one will simply sit back and allow their rights to be taken away. I know many people here in my current community who would take up arms at the slightest change in the laws that would allow their rights to be taken away. So I say right know though I do not care for weapons such as firearms if you try to start to take them away I will be one of the first to stand up to stop you. Why? Because it is what I belive is right that is why.
-
I see entire nations fall for things like that on a monthly basis. Indeed it is political apathy that\'s going to take our rights away eventually.
Originally posted by Hatchnet
So I say right know though I do not care for weapons such as firearms if you try to start to take them away I will be one of the first to stand up to stop you.
Even if it were ensured that the law enforcement is actually enforcing the law, not abusing their power?
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Why? Because it is what I belive is right that is why.
As can be seen from my posts, I don\'t think that holding guns is a right people should have. If anything, it is a sad necessity if the country isn\'t able to run itself properly (thus I accept the use of guns if law enforcement itself is corrupt.). But once this is resolved, there is no need for guns anymore (except for special forces).
-
Originally posted by Seytra
I see entire nations fall for things like that on a monthly basis. Indeed it is political apathy that\'s going to take our rights away eventually.
Originally posted by Hatchnet
So I say right know though I do not care for weapons such as firearms if you try to start to take them away I will be one of the first to stand up to stop you.
Even if it were ensured that the law enforcement is actually enforcing the law, not abusing their power?
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Why? Because it is what I belive is right that is why.
As can be seen from my posts, I don\'t think that holding guns is a right people should have. If anything, it is a sad necessity if the country isn\'t able to run itself properly (thus I accept the use of guns if law enforcement itself is corrupt.). But once this is resolved, there is no need for guns anymore (except for special forces).
And those Americans that would fight for their rights would not put away what is no longer needed at the moment. Our for fathers saw that the need for the populace to defend itself would arise again that is why we have the seconed amendment garanteeing our right to keep and bear arms. \"A ready millitia\" is what it is called that keeps our millitary and our government in check apopulace ready to defend its rights from the greedy, the power hungry, and the corrupt. America will fall to itself before it follows the path of Rome and becomes and empire; that my friend is the true power of those that love their fellow man enough to give their lives for his freedom. That is why though evils the like of greed and corruption must one day bring down the demacracys and republics of the world those men of true and just ideals those men who are not apothetic will throw down their lives to prevent the mistakes of the past from comeing back to haunt us. And as I said I will be one of those men.
Remember Seytra it only takes a single spark to start a fire and fires will always burn in the hearts and minds of just people.
-
here in the USA everyone and their crazy 94 year old grandma has a gun, even now people can legally buy AK-47\'s, AR-15\'s an the like for around $200... banning a gun here is useless... because there are also a lot of hunting... and that breaks a whole new playing field... I myself own on weapon... a 75lb. Recurve Longbow... I havent been able to hunt in a while... but guns are way too widespread... and if you think a big city is bad... look to the south... eveyone has some form of a sawed off shotgun and a hunting rifle.
-
Hatchnet, lets be realistic. If a civil war would ever occur in the us than the militias wouldn\'t stand a chance against the military. Only if the military would be split or neutral the militias would make a difference.
Also its easy to state one would fight for his/her beliefs if things degrade. But to actually do it in a war is completely different. War is something one has to live through to know what that person would do. War is very ugly business.
About your sig. Even though it was not meant that way i think it would make a good comment in favor of euthanasia.
-
Guns to defend your rights... come on guys ... just look at what\'s happening in Ukrainia, everything you need to get rid of the guns is there !