Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..

[Raeus and Ashra]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LRyw1JnAstg&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LRyw1JnAstg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I believe he mentions only once that he's talking about people with illegal firearms. I am sure many will gloss over that and just start calling in people who have guns hoping to receive a thousand dollars (if convicted). "Thanks for your free tips on where to find armed citizens well within their rights."

Oh to live in the days of the wild west, where people knew their rights and could wear a firearm in public. If push came to shove you'd walk outside and duel each other with the town Sheriff present. Of course guns back then weren't as fatal as todays..


*straps a baldric over his shoulder and slides a katana firmly in the leather sheath*

I think more people should walk around with weapons...

[Aus]

I think you're confusing the right to do something with the compulsion to do something. Just because people CAN own guns doesn't mean they SHOULD own guns, and I'd support pretty much any program or policy that limits gun ownership. Handguns exist for the sole purpose of shooting other people, and that seems like something maybe we oughta discourage.

That said, this program is obviously geared towards removing illegal weapons from the hands of criminals. If the person has a gun licence then they won't be in any trouble. If they don't, an illegal gun is off the streets. I realize that the concept of paying citizens to police one another is a dangerous precedent, but I don't really think this crosses the line.

[Ferox]

Handguns exist for the sole purpose of shooting other people, and that seems like something maybe we oughta discourage.

Many states you can hunt big game and small game animals with handguns. Also there are plenty of people who purchase them for the enjoyment of target shooting.

I know what you mean Aus but I just thought I would point that out.

[Azurai]

Newark isn't a nice place, but the problem isn't people illegally owning guns getting turned in, its people who legally own 'illegal' firearms which weren't sold through the ridiculous red tape and put in the 'temporary' gun ownership databases that are not deleted due to 'cost concerns' with secure data destruction and other nonsense.

Admiral Yamamoto once remarked "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." In 20 years, it will be illegal to own a firearm without remote safeties that can be activated with commercially available devices or without permanent registration for when the revolution comes. When the Chinese come, we're fucked.

[Xizorz]

Newark isn't a nice place, but the problem isn't people illegally owning guns getting turned in, its people who legally own 'illegal' firearms which weren't sold through the ridiculous red tape and put in the 'temporary' gun ownership databases that are not deleted due to 'cost concerns' with secure data destruction and other nonsense.

Admiral Yamamoto once remarked "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." In 20 years, it will be illegal to own a firearm without remote safeties that can be activated with commercially available devices or without permanent registration for when the revolution comes. When the Chinese come, we're fucked.

New Jersey in particular is a rather ridiculous state when it comes to firearms and concealed carry.

Crimes simply aren't often committed with legal CCW. The entire point of this kind of program is to harass law abiding citizens.

[greekrefugee]

Handguns exist for the sole purpose of shooting other people

Actually, they exist for the sole purpose of firing a bullet at whatever you're pointing it at. Target. Animal. Gay person's head. Whatever. I hear where you're coming from, but this always turns into one of those "you have to restrict access to everyone b/c some people are morons and can't handle firearms." Well, freedom sucks sometimes. And the criminal thing is lol. Criminals don't get guns through legal channels, so wtf do restrictions do? I'm usually fairly liberal about most things except gun control and abortion. And the funny thing is, most people don't even know they live next door to gun owners. I mean shit, I don't run around my backyard with mine, or go around carrying them in obvious rifle shaped cases. Most of the gun people I know are the same way. They defend their right to carry, but keep a low profile so people don't freak out. Live and let live.

As a side note, I find it hilarious that many pro-choicers are anti-gun. Is killing bad or not? Make up your mind.

[Scopar]

I always laugh at the American obsession with guns; never understood it and probably never will. I could somewhat understand back in the day when the right to bare arms led to more security from the state, but in this day an age is that even relevant?

Do you really think that if some foreign country invades, owning a handgun makes you any safer? In modern warfare, combatants are dying over 80% from remotely detonated devices or air strikes; for example greater than 99% of the US Military's bullets is used for suppressive fire in tactical situations. Do you think owning a legal handgun could even save you from the police? Far less any better armed tactical unit which the government has dozens of levels.

Does that mean that citizens should then be allowed to carry RPGs, Tanks and other sophisticated weapons to keep up with the power of the state's armory?

Firing guns for sport, hunting or the stress relief of target shooting is one thing. But the usual defense of "I have a right to bare arms, protect my rights, blah blah" doesn't really have much relevance today.

[Xyrm]

If you restrict guns too heavily, people will turn to illegal means in far greater numbers. I will grant that our current system is flaw and doesn't always guarantee accountability, but being able to own a gun, for whatever non-murder reason, is fine IMO.

And to the above poster, you don't buy a handgun to fight the police. You buy a handgun to protect your family against the asshole robbing your house in the middle of the night, or as Sixthy will like do, shoot wildly at any boys trying to get near your daughter. Although I feel a shotgun might do the same thing and be far more effective in intimidation, it's harder to store and hide.

[Aus]

My post wasn't intended to make this a gun control debate, and I don't really see the policy that was inspiration for this topic as a gun control issue. It's not about restricting the rights of legal gun owners, it's about getting illegal guns off the street.

I agree with Scopar though, there isn't much reason to own a gun nowadays. The concept of defending yourself from anything but a home invader (robbery or something) is silly, because as Scopar mentioned, if China decides to go to war with us they aren't going to be going door to door and having pistol fights with our neighbors, they're going to drop bombs on us.

As for my comment regarding the purpose of handguns, while they certainly can be used for hunting or target shooting, their primary function is still for shooting people. Do people really even hunt with hand guns? What the fuck would you do that for? Decreased firepower and range doesn't seem awesome.

[Xyrm]

As for my comment regarding the purpose of handguns, while they certainly can be used for hunting or target shooting, their primary function is still for shooting people. Do people really even hunt with hand guns? What the fuck would you do that for? Decreased firepower and range doesn't seem awesome.

WYATT FUCKING EARP

[Sixthy]

As for my comment regarding the purpose of handguns, while they certainly can be used for hunting or target shooting, their primary function is still for shooting people. Do people really even hunt with hand guns? What the fuck would you do that for? Decreased firepower and range doesn't seem awesome.

WYATT FUCKING EARP

Wrong picture, wrong scene.

[Xyrm]

I know, I couldn't find a picture for that scene ;(

[Scopar]

And to the above poster, you don't buy a handgun to fight the police. You buy a handgun to protect your family against the asshole robbing your house in the middle of the night, or as Sixthy will like do, shoot wildly at any boys trying to get near your daughter. Although I feel a shotgun might do the same thing and be far more effective in intimidation, it's harder to store and hide.

Whether having a gun really protects you from robberies, etc is up for debate. It's rather inconclusive, people have been targeted FOR their legal guns in some regions as the intent. I'm really not sure what the statistics are but I figure, using conventional logic, with the combination of all the consequences of increased gun possession, the net effect is no real increased safety over stricter gun control.

[Xyrm]

My counter arguement is, just like drugs, stricter gun control laws will lead to more being acquired illegally, and with less accountability, more shootings would likely occur.

I am NOT saying they should remove all restrictions, but I beleive the ones currently in place do just fine.

[Aus]

Well the difference between drug use and gun violence is that one necessarily implies people getting hurt, whereas the other does not. I recognize that stupid, dangerous things occur when people are drunk or high, but that's definitely not the norm. However, illegal activity involving guns generally involves, you know, shooting at people. I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your point, I'm just explaining that the situations are too different to compare quite so directly imo.