Gun control?
One rule be polite.
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 10,543
RATE
29
Posted: 2010-01-03 07:59:41
Psst.
Responses (203) / Sorted by points
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
guns dnt kill people lolz people kill people
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
I don't like them when they are either being used for the purpose of killing or are part of a killing action.
This also applies to guns. When you use them for sport, ok. But using them for protection is counterproductive. You are more likely to kill another family member than an intruder.
This also applies to guns. When you use them for sport, ok. But using them for protection is counterproductive. You are more likely to kill another family member than an intruder.
Well even if we ban guns people are still going to get killed by other people. In my opinion this has more to do with society. If we ban guns I don't think it'll help. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If we ban guns what will be next?
@logo the experts agree pic is about totalitarianistic, communist, facist, and tyrannical rulers who activated gun control which lead to many dead victims of the basic paranoid reason of the action.
The picture we are referring to is extremely asinine.
Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, etc., did not take over because of gun control. They did not stand for gun control. They are not remembered as the worst people history has to offer because of gun control.
To equate a simple question of whether there should be more or less strict gun control laws to the men mentioned above is to greatly trivialize the thousands upon millions dead, and I will not stand for that.
"tyrannical rulers who actived gun control which lead to many dead victims of the basic paranoid reason of the action."
First of all, this doesn't quite make sense to me. Some grammar is left out, and I can't quite discern the main point. Please clarify?
But attempting to insinuate that gun control led directly to the dead victims of these dictators is preposterous..... And disgusting.
Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, etc., did not take over because of gun control. They did not stand for gun control. They are not remembered as the worst people history has to offer because of gun control.
To equate a simple question of whether there should be more or less strict gun control laws to the men mentioned above is to greatly trivialize the thousands upon millions dead, and I will not stand for that.
"tyrannical rulers who actived gun control which lead to many dead victims of the basic paranoid reason of the action."
First of all, this doesn't quite make sense to me. Some grammar is left out, and I can't quite discern the main point. Please clarify?
But attempting to insinuate that gun control led directly to the dead victims of these dictators is preposterous..... And disgusting.
the reason why gun controll doesn't work is simple. some people don't legally own their weapons thus wouldn't be influenced by the law in this case. We can assume these are bad people because they have already broken the law so will probably break it again. knowing that no on else has a gun it would take far less courage to mug someone and even if they did own a gun they probably wouldn't report them because they also have broken the law by owning a gun.
thats why I am against gun controll
thats why I am against gun controll
That's like saying there's no point in making murder illegal because some people will just murder illegally. Yes you all have your 'right' to own a gun but that's not the point, i have the 'right' to cheat on my girlfriend but that's still not necessary. Guns are NOT necessary in everyday life, you cannot argue against this. Just look at other countries, we do fine in England and not even our police officers carry guns.
Sweet if i ever feel like going on a mass murder spree i will go to england with my gun i bought in america and since u have none i wont be afraid. how safe do u feel now. Everyone should be able to have a gun for protection because there will always be people who wont listen and obey the rules.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Or it could just be used as a preventative measure. MAD(mutually assured destruction) is what saved the USA in the cold war. That concept isn't quite applicable to this conversation but you can link them. But if a criminal knows I have guns in my house probably will decide not to rob me unless I have über nice things in my house. Which I don't. Most likely he eoud go to another house
Ok banning guns would be a horrible idea. You have to look at it from a criminals perspective. The criminal will still have the guns, but he will know that there is a 99.9% chance the person who's house/business he wants to rob, break into, or burgalarize will not have a gun to stop him/her. That will just make his job easier. Also there are alot of things that aren't required for everyday life like cars so that is not a valid argument.
A total ban on guns would work because even though there are guns now and criminals could get guns illegally if ammo is no longer manufactured, except specifically for the military, then the guns will become worthless. People say they want guns for hunting and frankly, that's pathetic. They don't need it for the food, just for their own enjoyment and i have no problem making them stop killing animals for fun.
I know in Vermont the combined hunting,fishing,and trapping licenses pay for most of the wildlife conservation efforts in our areas. Also, without hunting populations would become too large and disease would spread fast thought the populations killing large numbers and, more animals would be hit on roadways(and seeing someone hit a moose at 50mph won't be something pretty).
all i have to say is thank god we live in a country where i can kill and skin my own food. more people should know how to skin a deer and clean a fish. hunting is an art that should not be lost due to the emasculation of men around the world. yes i said it. if you don't know how to hunt and clean animals you are less of a man. part of what makes a man a man is the ability to hunt. the women gather.
Actually some people do hunt specifically for food, how do you decide which is which and where do you think the meat at the store comes from?
The meat at the store comes from farmed animals... Did you think we send hunters out to track chicken for your KFC?
The animals that are used for meat are also, generally, killed in a very painless fashion. As opposed to just being shot. The risk that comes from being shot is that the kill is rarely a clean instant kill and the animal dies in pain.
The animals that are used for meat are also, generally, killed in a very painless fashion. As opposed to just being shot. The risk that comes from being shot is that the kill is rarely a clean instant kill and the animal dies in pain.
So what do you do about the people who kill for food?
Well there are alot of unessecary activities out there. Driving a motor vehicle is not nessecary. If you havld to you could move closer to your job. Plus you can't exactly just go buy deer, squirel, or bear meat. If your gonna ban hunting just go ahead and ban all other sports and even fishing.
Okay towards the hunting argument, if they didn't hunt deer they would overpopulate one area and cause car wrecks and hurt people. This has been proven in areas and as soon as hunting has been reestablished the accidents went down. The deer season has even been made longer because they have overpopulate so many areas here in the midwest.
Posted: 2010-04-05 21:21:03 Report
yes hunting does help control the population of any animal. less deer in the woods = less deer on the roads. less deer on the roads = less death to people due to accidents. i know logos you are for less death to people.
also i took a poll with 50 diffrent gun owners and know what i found out first hand;
no one has ever had a problem with guns in the home
the gun has been used to protect life and property.
education can solve ALL gun safity issues.
now you throw out fact, there are some back at you. my sample source was over 50 people who have all owned firearms for 20+ years.
also i took a poll with 50 diffrent gun owners and know what i found out first hand;
no one has ever had a problem with guns in the home
the gun has been used to protect life and property.
education can solve ALL gun safity issues.
now you throw out fact, there are some back at you. my sample source was over 50 people who have all owned firearms for 20+ years.
Posted: 2010-04-07 05:57:47 Report
If people didn't hunt animals they would overpopulate. It has been the rule since the beginning of time. Not to be rude by proving you wrong.
There's nothing wrong with hunting. Especially if you're hunting because you don't want your meat to have chemicals and hormone injections. Besides, if we stopped hunting deer, they'd overpopulate, disease would spread like crazy, and more would die than they do now from hunting. By hunting, we're helping them.
Posted: 2010-01-14 13:40:14 Report
What about people who live no where near a superstore? Or even a market? They essentially live off of the land. Ex. West Texas.
Posted: 2010-01-13 17:58:18 Report
Jofus - not to sound like i'm attacking you, but that's a ridiculous statement that has no place in this argument. Laws should not be based around what a minority of people find 'fun'. That includes killing creatures.
Ghettoshen - If there are infact people who live like that and actually NEED to hunt to survive then that's a different matter and it's natural instinct for them to hunt. It's hunting for no reason, hunting because you enjoy killing animals, that is not necessary and shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding the law. Also this would be a tiny fraction of the guns that are currently owned in USA.
Ghettoshen - If there are infact people who live like that and actually NEED to hunt to survive then that's a different matter and it's natural instinct for them to hunt. It's hunting for no reason, hunting because you enjoy killing animals, that is not necessary and shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding the law. Also this would be a tiny fraction of the guns that are currently owned in USA.
Posted: 2010-01-14 01:13:14 Report
my god i can't stand you people. I GET MY FOOD FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY KILL THE ANIMALS IN A NICE WAY. to that i say bs. you don't want to get your hands bloody. you would rather let some one do that for you. the amount of pain and suffering a deer gets from a well placed shot very similar to the pain and suffering it goes threw at the slaughter house. how do i know? i used to work at a slaughter house when i was in high school.
gun control and drug control are two entirely different topics.
I live in England where gun crime is tiny compared to America. Granted we don't have a gun in just about every home like you guys but that's not it. Canada have just as much guns per head as you guys and again a tiny fraction of the gun crime. It's the people and the society in America where media and the news instils fear in all of you. Don't go calling it human nature because somehow just about every other country is doing fine...
Don't worry, I uprated it. Some people can't stand a good debate, not your fault.
England is smaller and your cops are pussies simple as that.
I seriously doubt any more gun control laws would be effective. People always will have guns and by making it harder or impossible for people to legally get them, they'll simply turn to illegal means and I think it'd be a terrible shame for honest citizens to be turned into felons because they want to be protected.
Of course, I found it funny : ).
Don't worry Jofus, although I appreciate you watching out for me : P.
And as I said, I don't completely disagree. Although I would like guns to be controlled... I don't really support much more regulation than is in place. We already have background checks, waiting periods, age limits, etc. in most states. And although I never think it a good idea for a private citizen to own a gun for any reason but sport, I don't disagree with either of your stances on the laws themselves... I think : ).
Don't worry Jofus, although I appreciate you watching out for me : P.
And as I said, I don't completely disagree. Although I would like guns to be controlled... I don't really support much more regulation than is in place. We already have background checks, waiting periods, age limits, etc. in most states. And although I never think it a good idea for a private citizen to own a gun for any reason but sport, I don't disagree with either of your stances on the laws themselves... I think : ).
if you made the laws stricter it will only increse the number of illegal guns because it will become harder to own a gun and generaly when people get guns llegaly they dont go out killing lots of people they use them to protect themselves
I don't think gun control laws will do anything. I, personally, see no reason for guns in a home (especially the astounding amount found in Suburbia), and would be extremely happy seeing them voluntarily left by the wayside. However, if people want to commit crime, they will with whatever implement they can find. And if they are determined enough, they will find a gun whether or not they own one.
However, I would love laws that restrict America's arms deals.... make me sick.
However, I would love laws that restrict America's arms deals.... make me sick.
Sure to the last two, but statistics say you will end up doing more harm than good with your guns at home to protect yourselves...
And I personally hate the feeling of holding a gun. Done it once, never again. I don't like any implement designed to murder... *shiver*
And I personally hate the feeling of holding a gun. Done it once, never again. I don't like any implement designed to murder... *shiver*
guns are not designed to murder with. they are designed to hunt with. i mean, sure there are plenty of homicides with guns, but there is also plenty of homicides with knives, poison, etc. ppl can just as easy murder someone with a knife as they could a gun, given the right circumstances. i think gun control, like most everybody else has said, would just increase the crime rate. criminals who have guns now have already broken the law, so why would they not break the law if they weren't supposed to have a gun?
Guns are designed to kill... that's essentially the staple of the market. There are hunting firearms, and they are labeled as such. But you can't be saying that Uzis aren't designed to kill?
And triclebickle: I don't like bullets, no. Swords I'm fine with, you are not nearly as likely to hurt a family member with one of those. Or with knives or arrows. Accidents don't often happen with those implements, and they often keep to their intended purpose.
However, statistics show that guns often lead to dire, unintentional consequences.
And triclebickle: I don't like bullets, no. Swords I'm fine with, you are not nearly as likely to hurt a family member with one of those. Or with knives or arrows. Accidents don't often happen with those implements, and they often keep to their intended purpose.
However, statistics show that guns often lead to dire, unintentional consequences.
so you dont like swords, knives, arrows, bows, bullets, so on and son on
To kill and to murder basically mean the same thing. If you murder someone, you have killed them. If you kill someone, you have murdered them. Its kind of a harsh way to look at things but its true.
Murder: to kill with premeditation.
Kill: to end a life.
Murder is what a a criminal does. If a cop tries to apprehend a criminal and the criminal shoots at the cop, then the cop pulls his gun out and ends the criminals life. Is the cop a murderer?
Kill: to end a life.
Murder is what a a criminal does. If a cop tries to apprehend a criminal and the criminal shoots at the cop, then the cop pulls his gun out and ends the criminals life. Is the cop a murderer?
Yes, the cop thought, "This guy is shooting at me! I need to shoot back!" That is premeditation and according to your definition that would be murder.
Premeditation: to plan or ponder before the action is commited.
So your saying killing in self defense or to save an innocent life is no different than cold-blooded murder? Also, I wouldn't call the split second to defend one's self pondering.
So your saying killing in self defense or to save an innocent life is no different than cold-blooded murder? Also, I wouldn't call the split second to defend one's self pondering.
Regardless of who's right in this. If you remove the guns, or as many as possible, then this situation is far less likely to occur.
Although the issue is actually the mentality of USA rather than the weapon of choice. If you banned guns the people would use knives. It's how a good number of you all are. Sorry
Although the issue is actually the mentality of USA rather than the weapon of choice. If you banned guns the people would use knives. It's how a good number of you all are. Sorry
But can't you see that just because you have a legal right to something doesn't mean you should all get them? It's as i said somewhere else, i have a legal right to cheat on my girlfriend. It's a right that you just don't really need and would be better off without. It's no wonder that so many people in America feel like they need a gun, if not 6, just to feel safe. They're told so everyday, it's all a matter of fear, go watch the news, i bet you there will be something mentioning something unpleasant and scary, murder, burglary, etc. Right now in England the news is about the snow and how a few businesses have had to close down and advising people to only drive if necessary. That's about it. We all know that people commit horrible crimes, but there is no benefit in throwing in everyones face multiple times everyday. It just scares people.
Also i know this is a taboo subject so i apologise if i offend anyone, but what about 9/11? It was a horrible thing but so many people live in day to day fear about terrorist attacks. They could attack i know, but your media takes things too far. London was bombed shortly after, 7/7, and the country as a whole made efforts to improve safety (we no longer have bins in a lot of public areas and certainly not on our underground(metro) stations). We all know it could happen, we're big boys and girls and don't need someone shouting at us 'YOU COULD DIEEEE' everyday.
Sorry that rant just went on a bit, away from guns too, but it was just to show that your media and your news instills so much fear in American citizens that you genuinely believe you all need more weapons to feel safe. Whereas everywhere else feels safe, and is safer, without.
Also i know this is a taboo subject so i apologise if i offend anyone, but what about 9/11? It was a horrible thing but so many people live in day to day fear about terrorist attacks. They could attack i know, but your media takes things too far. London was bombed shortly after, 7/7, and the country as a whole made efforts to improve safety (we no longer have bins in a lot of public areas and certainly not on our underground(metro) stations). We all know it could happen, we're big boys and girls and don't need someone shouting at us 'YOU COULD DIEEEE' everyday.
Sorry that rant just went on a bit, away from guns too, but it was just to show that your media and your news instills so much fear in American citizens that you genuinely believe you all need more weapons to feel safe. Whereas everywhere else feels safe, and is safer, without.
Posted: 2010-01-11 02:13:08 Report
Jofus: No one said anything about cold blooded murder or whether he was right in killing the guy. I was pointing out that killing and murdering were basically the same thing. And yes, the split second that he took to think about it is planning and pondering because he very well could have thought the opposite and spared him but he felt it necessary to fire a shot.
And I also feel that he was right for what he did. He did not do it in cold blood, he was fired upon first. The cop acted in self defense and for the safety of others around him.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you believe since murder is usually only applied to criminals that the word can only be applied to them. Anyone can murder. Not everyone can do it in cold blood.
And I also feel that he was right for what he did. He did not do it in cold blood, he was fired upon first. The cop acted in self defense and for the safety of others around him.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you believe since murder is usually only applied to criminals that the word can only be applied to them. Anyone can murder. Not everyone can do it in cold blood.
We aren't just invading and slaughtering civilians like you make it out to be. We had just cause to to into those countries to hunt down these, yes I will say it again, terrorist thugs. Also with your comment on how some are just fighting to get us our of their home, that is probably 1 in 1,000,000 and if that were the casewhy wouldn't that person help us becuase the terrorist thugs will just make their lives horrible.
Posted: 2010-01-16 05:46:53 Report
YES!!!!! TERRORIST THUGS!!! The next time I am "invaded" I'm pretty sure I wont tell parents of children with down syndrome that the only way that their child can go to paradise is to blow themselves up in a market full of innocent people.
On August 2, 1990 the dictator-ran country of Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait. On January 12, 1991 the U.S congress approved military force for the purpose of forcing Iraq out of Kuwait. The war was over on February 28, 1991.
On August, 23 1996 Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S.A.
1993, a man by the name of Ramzi Yousef used a truck full of high explosives in an attempt to destroy tower 1 along with tower 2. 6 people were killed and 1,042 were injured.
September 11, 2001. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the two twin towers, the pentagon, and the other plane crashed due to the heroics of some passengers on board. Over 3,000 innocent people were killed.
America began it's war in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 in an effort to destroy the Taliban and al-qaeda.
Around March 20, 2003 a coalition including the U.S.A, Great Britain, Australia, Denmark, and quite a few others.
On August 2, 1990 the dictator-ran country of Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait. On January 12, 1991 the U.S congress approved military force for the purpose of forcing Iraq out of Kuwait. The war was over on February 28, 1991.
On August, 23 1996 Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S.A.
1993, a man by the name of Ramzi Yousef used a truck full of high explosives in an attempt to destroy tower 1 along with tower 2. 6 people were killed and 1,042 were injured.
September 11, 2001. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the two twin towers, the pentagon, and the other plane crashed due to the heroics of some passengers on board. Over 3,000 innocent people were killed.
America began it's war in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 in an effort to destroy the Taliban and al-qaeda.
Around March 20, 2003 a coalition including the U.S.A, Great Britain, Australia, Denmark, and quite a few others.
Posted: 2010-01-13 18:18:32 Report
I don't understand your point. This isn't an argument against my statement it's just some random facts. As i stated the people who are fighting in this war are NOT all terrorist thugs. And you would do exactly the same thing as them if the table was turned.
Posted: 2010-01-14 01:08:56 Report
"The next time I am "invaded" I'm pretty sure I wont tell parents of children with down syndrome that the only way that their child can go to paradise is to blow themselves up in a market full of innocent people. "
Hmmm. But what will you tell them? Simply our culture's version of indoctrination, eh? That, somehow, America has the right to do what it will in the world, ignoring the needs, wants, and rights of all others? That it is fine to let millions starve so few will live in luxury? That a violent God rules over all? Or that we have dominion over the Earth, skies, and sea, so why worry about our planet's health?
There's blame to be placed everywhere.
And I agree with Dannyl, I would fight for my safety.
Hmmm. But what will you tell them? Simply our culture's version of indoctrination, eh? That, somehow, America has the right to do what it will in the world, ignoring the needs, wants, and rights of all others? That it is fine to let millions starve so few will live in luxury? That a violent God rules over all? Or that we have dominion over the Earth, skies, and sea, so why worry about our planet's health?
There's blame to be placed everywhere.
And I agree with Dannyl, I would fight for my safety.
Posted: 2010-01-14 05:09:36 Report
Logos have you ever driven a car? Cars do more damage than guns.
the answer is to limit the people who can have them. But just taking gem away really wouldn't solve the problem.
1. The govt enacts a ban on guns.
2. Mr. Smith being a good citizen gives up his guns when the govt comes to confiscate them.
3. Mr. Gangsta here's about ban on guns. He luaghs and knows he will still have his gun. He doesn't ha e it registered anyways.
4. Mr. Gangsta goes and shoots people. He eventually runs outnof ammo and then calls his friend in Mexico and his friend brings him more ammo.
Yes we should limit who can have guns but it would not stop non-law abiding citizens from using, buying, and getting ammo for guns.
1. The govt enacts a ban on guns.
2. Mr. Smith being a good citizen gives up his guns when the govt comes to confiscate them.
3. Mr. Gangsta here's about ban on guns. He luaghs and knows he will still have his gun. He doesn't ha e it registered anyways.
4. Mr. Gangsta goes and shoots people. He eventually runs outnof ammo and then calls his friend in Mexico and his friend brings him more ammo.
Yes we should limit who can have guns but it would not stop non-law abiding citizens from using, buying, and getting ammo for guns.
No, we debated a few hours about this in debate, I have the right to bare arms, and I will find way and have found ways how it takes that right. No. Their shouldn't be, start worrying more abut these damn terrorist and end this war, find their learder and kill him on the spot scinse panzise took away quontonimo bay that was a right and great place. Now how the hell are we going to get info from them? They are not the average criminal. They will never tell...:O sorry..just havn't ranted in a while...
guns cant kill people but people can. and i like gun control and thats why i use both hands, and besides nazi germany had gun control and look what happened there, look at china, england, and australia they have gun control look at the violent crime rates there.
The violent crime rates in those places are lower than the US... what are you getting at?
Total Crime Rate: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
Rape Rate: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
Murders With Firearms: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-wit
h-firearms
Murder Total: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
The US is first in the first two, and above the two countries you mentioned (as in worse than) in all 4 categories.
Total Crime Rate: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
Rape Rate: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
Murders With Firearms: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-wit
h-firearms
Murder Total: www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
The US is first in the first two, and above the two countries you mentioned (as in worse than) in all 4 categories.
Well, here's how it would go down.
1. Gun Control Laws Implemented. (Leads to 2a or 2b.)
2a. Someone sues the gov. because the Constitution says they have a right to bear arms. (Leads to 3a or 3c.)
2b. Constitution is amended to where you are not allowed to bear arms. (Leads to 3b.)
3a. Person wins, laws are lifted.
3b. People find a way to get guns anyway, kind of like the Prohibition Era, people still found alcohol.
3c. Man loses and laws still stand. (Leads to 3b.)
1. Gun Control Laws Implemented. (Leads to 2a or 2b.)
2a. Someone sues the gov. because the Constitution says they have a right to bear arms. (Leads to 3a or 3c.)
2b. Constitution is amended to where you are not allowed to bear arms. (Leads to 3b.)
3a. Person wins, laws are lifted.
3b. People find a way to get guns anyway, kind of like the Prohibition Era, people still found alcohol.
3c. Man loses and laws still stand. (Leads to 3b.)
I don't support gun control laws, I just don't like guns in households : ). My post above was just correcting seeming factual misconceptions.
And that post was extremely well done and logically sound. Probably the best post in this thread I think. So succinct as well! I'm jealous.
And that post was extremely well done and logically sound. Probably the best post in this thread I think. So succinct as well! I'm jealous.
Of course, I understand you don't support guns in the household or gun control laws, that's all fine and dandy though I only agree with the latter. I was just stating why gun control laws will never work.
Thanks for the compliment anyway! :D
Thanks for the compliment anyway! :D
You can't pass that law. It's within the constitution.
First of all, it would be illegal to post a law like this due to the constitution. Second of all, its the people controlling the guns. Not the Guns.
Not necessarily. The constitution dictates that there is a right to bear arms. However, it does not say that right cannot be restricted.
This is similar to the right of free speech and press being restricted in public schools. Completely legitimate.
This is similar to the right of free speech and press being restricted in public schools. Completely legitimate.
Legitimate but yet false at the same time.
All that would have to happen is get enough people to be alienated into believing that gun control is good and amend the Constitution.
Because it starts with "You insulted his beliefs" then goes to "By bringing up your beliefs, you made him uncomfortable" then " And so on till you can barely say anything without being arrested. Think it sounds crazy? It's already happening in the work place. I personally know several people who could get fired if something they post on a website offends their superior.
First of all, the workplace example isn't really applicable: that is an extreme example of personal bias, but has nothing to do with the government or hate crime legislation.
You are also confused, it seems, on what hate crime legislation is. A hate crime is a deleterious, criminal act (murder, rape, stealing, etc.) that is done purely because the victim is of a persecuted race, gender, orientation, age, etc.
You mean, I think, "Hate Speech." This, while being completely different, is also generally good legislation. You employ the "slippery slope" argument, saying that since the legislation exists, it will automatically begin to slip downhill into something you would find in an Orwellian state. However, I disagree strongly, and think being able to protect kids at school from "hate speech," i.e. extremely derogatory words towards homosexuals or african americans, is a worthy cause.
You are also confused, it seems, on what hate crime legislation is. A hate crime is a deleterious, criminal act (murder, rape, stealing, etc.) that is done purely because the victim is of a persecuted race, gender, orientation, age, etc.
You mean, I think, "Hate Speech." This, while being completely different, is also generally good legislation. You employ the "slippery slope" argument, saying that since the legislation exists, it will automatically begin to slip downhill into something you would find in an Orwellian state. However, I disagree strongly, and think being able to protect kids at school from "hate speech," i.e. extremely derogatory words towards homosexuals or african americans, is a worthy cause.
If they didn't give out guns to every retard with money, that doesn't know how a fucking gun works, or is a crazy sadistic moron who thinks they're king shit. Or even some lazy gang banger who cant get a job. There wouldn't be so much crime with fire arms.
It depends on how far the law went. If the government forcefully made everyone in America give up their guns and then only manufactured them for the armed forces. Guns would be very very difficult to find unless you went to the army and stole one. And you don't mess with the government.
Interesting ghettoshen. That of course assumes the illegal stock degrades over time, and no third party ("moonshine") gun dealers arise.... But hey, worth a try for the amount of good it would do? Haha.
I dunno. I'm not extremely educated in this subject. : ).
I dunno. I'm not extremely educated in this subject. : ).
Of course I was only talking hypothetically and the chances of that are almost none but hey, might as well list possibilities right? :D
Debating until we have nothing else to talk about of course! Which has kind of happened here. I'm going to find someone else with different views and bash them for it!!!! Only kidding of course. :)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson
"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." -Adolf Hitler
Also I do know it did work in England but that is a relatively small island so it would be easier to keep unwanted things out.
In addition, these gun bans would not target lawbreakers, they would target the good citizens who got their guns the right way.
"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." -Adolf Hitler
Also I do know it did work in England but that is a relatively small island so it would be easier to keep unwanted things out.
In addition, these gun bans would not target lawbreakers, they would target the good citizens who got their guns the right way.
Those quotes don't really matter. Also, pragmatically, Hitler's comment made more sense. Jefferson is what? 200 years old? We can hardly follow his words considering how different the country is now to how it was then.
Also, even though UK is a tiny Island we still have a population of over 60million. China has a population of over 1billion
Also, even though UK is a tiny Island we still have a population of over 60million. China has a population of over 1billion
You guys do have 5 times the population it's true so it would be easier here.
However your country is split into states so it could be done state by state i would imagine. Surely the resolution to most of these issues is by restricting the sale of ammo? Without ammo the criminals with guns cannot use those guns, even if they can keep them hidden. I'm aware that ammo can be made but this is surely a huge step in preventing gun crime. Right now it's easier to get a gun than it is to make your own ammo, far easier.
However your country is split into states so it could be done state by state i would imagine. Surely the resolution to most of these issues is by restricting the sale of ammo? Without ammo the criminals with guns cannot use those guns, even if they can keep them hidden. I'm aware that ammo can be made but this is surely a huge step in preventing gun crime. Right now it's easier to get a gun than it is to make your own ammo, far easier.
The bottom line is that it is given to us as a right in the constitution. You can't take it away.
But if you argue that because guns have evolved from what they were back when the country was founded then that is an extremely good valid point. But if we are going to go by that theory (Which I won't) then we need to update some of our other rights like freedom of speech. They didn't have TV and Internet back then so we can regulate what people can say on those.
But if you argue that because guns have evolved from what they were back when the country was founded then that is an extremely good valid point. But if we are going to go by that theory (Which I won't) then we need to update some of our other rights like freedom of speech. They didn't have TV and Internet back then so we can regulate what people can say on those.
All these arguments are based on the assumption that the gun control argument should be fought on an all or nothing stance, that all guns should be allowed or none of them. Gun control could limit the types of guns allowed. It's not actually true that we have no guns in Britain, shotguns are still allowed under a license for farmers to cull pests and for hunting (because for anything your likely to be hunting in Britain if you used anything other than a shotgun there wouldn't be much left) and for sport: clay shooting with shotguns still goes on in Britain. Johnecash said in another post that our government doesn't trust us with guns, but it's more true to say that we're not trusted with any kind of gun that there is no legitimate use for in Britain, the sort of guns which could only imaginably be used for hurting yourself or others or could make it through a police officer's stab-proof vest. Allowing us any other kind of weapon wouldn't be trust it would be a pointless risk with no upside.
Obviously this would be more difficult to implement in the states, where there is game which requires something bigger than a shotgun, but what's so bad about the recently lapsed assault weapons ban in the states? does anybody really need an assault rifle in their home?
Basically I'm saying it's difficult to separate the bad people from the good people when legislating about who should be allowed a gun, but it's easier to separate the useful guns from the 'useless' or 'dangerous' categories.
Obviously this would be more difficult to implement in the states, where there is game which requires something bigger than a shotgun, but what's so bad about the recently lapsed assault weapons ban in the states? does anybody really need an assault rifle in their home?
Basically I'm saying it's difficult to separate the bad people from the good people when legislating about who should be allowed a gun, but it's easier to separate the useful guns from the 'useless' or 'dangerous' categories.
Do you know that in the US is it legal to own a mini gun? There are private owners of mini guns. Yet you have never heard of a mini gun used in a crime. The size of the gun does not matter. One of the reasons i feel this country is so great is due to the fact that our government does allow us to own weapons. The majority of crimes here are not committed with assault rifles. the majority of assault rifle owners do not abuse the law. most gun crimes are committed with weapons that many would find, as you put it, useful. my personal home defense weapon is a 12 gauge semi shot gun (there is no sound in the world as scary in the middle of the night to an intruder than the bolt slamming shut on a 12 gauge). when you take our guns away the only people who will give them up are law abiding citizens not the criminals.
Just read this, thought i'd stick it here:
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The firearms death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The firearms death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
exactly, so you are saying stricter gun control results in more deaths based on your statement.
That's my understanding, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
all i want to know is this. has a gun ever killed anyone on its own? as far as i know the gun must be loaded by a person, then the person must pull the trigger. the gun only does what a person tells it to do. Unless i am wrong and yall know of some strange case of a gun loading then shooting all by itself?
So your for or against strict Gun control pick a damn side already.
Correct me if I've misread that, but doesn't that state that Washington D.C. having SOME OF THE STRICTEST GUN CONTROL LAWS IN THE NATION have a higher firearm death rate than Iraq?
So give us guns to protect ourselves... from what? The guns you gave us to protect ourselves with... that makes sense
I'm 16 and I have guns of course I don't own them but it's a hobby of mine to go out and shoot if anything guns have taught me to be even more responsible cleaning,shooting,and proper gun handling all play a role. I started off with nothing more than my red ryder BB gun but with that I learned the basics that are applied to higher calibers.
Absolutely living in Vermont it is one of the few things that can get a person to push themselves out of bed at 5AM...that and milking cows seems to be the only things..I don't work on a dairy farm but damn every 24 hours those four legged beasts need to be drained.
you are a man after my own hear. i am a south Alabama guy here and i know all about that. ever had to roll dirty hay covered in ants for horses before?
ever chopped down a tree with a 12gauge before? its not the most efficient way to cut a tree down but it is fun
ever chopped down a tree with a 12gauge before? its not the most efficient way to cut a tree down but it is fun
wow youre a complete dickhead arent you? What part of im 23 do you not understand? take your weed and leave sharenator, its not a place for whiney emo kids
when it comes to hunting wepones(i.e. bolt action, lever action breach action and pump action rifles and shotguns) there should be less controll. But when it comes to assult type wepons, we should really know who has them
AK-47s, M-14s,anything with seletive fire
most of the ones on the market for civilians are only semi-automatic (one shot every time you pull the trigger) anyways. to purchase any firearm that is anything but semi-automatic you have to receive a special permit anyways so they are already controlled.
.... can I ask how many knives you have???
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Post a response
Related posts
