PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control


supertails
September 29th, 2008, 07:52 PM
Do you believe in gun control? I'm voting yes. I believe most people just don't need guns and I've heard all the argument and non of them hold water to me. The most common one is protection. Someone brakes into your house blah, blah, blah, you shoot them everything is well but what if the guy already has a gun then you'd either have a shoot out or give up and try to sneak out. Sure a gun is a nice cheap way to protect yourself but most people don't take reaction time and sleep into play. I believe most people who just have guns get robbed more then those with alarms. A robber breaks in and the alarm goes off and he just runs but if you just have a gun ask yourself if you're a light sleeper because if you're not he's going to steal everything and you'd be in your empty house saying at least I had a gun. In fact I don't remember a single episode of it takes a thieve that they ever said guns are good anti thieve devices they usually give you a bunch of expensive equipment. Also most people who brake into houses are only looking for stuff and money, not to hurt anyone.

One more argument is that most people don't even hunt anymore. They just go to walmart and buy everything.

Signomi
September 29th, 2008, 10:35 PM
...I do see this topic to be somewhat argument-based which is likely to promote discussion, so I'd say this would better belong in Other Chat.

~Moved

Noah Ridgewood
September 29th, 2008, 10:45 PM
By gun control, I'm assuming you mean the right to have a gun? I've never heard of gun control, per say, but that's what I'm going to assume you mean.

With that said, I don't think anyone at all needs a gun except for officials of the community/state you live in. It's strange because my grandfather used to be a police officer and just the other day he tried to show me his old gun. I refused to touch it. It's just natural for me to refuse to touch those kind of things. Most times, people who get guns whether legally or illegally just end up regretting it in the future. I just find it too much of a risk for anyone (other than those who need it -- being police officers and those types of people) to have a gun.

I'm going to compare this with mods for now. Though you may not see the similarities between the two of them and normally these two types of things would be associated with each other anyway:

Moderators are basically the police officers of a community. I know that, you know that, everyone on the internet <should> know(s) that. Moderators go a long time before becoming what they are and gaining the power that they can do to a community. As do police officers. If someone is given that power, for whatever reason, without being trusted, and known that they could do a job like that and handle that kind of power. With that said, even some of them turn bad and do something that screws up with they have.

So clearly, I don't agree with having guns for whatever reason as it's too dangerous. And that's my opinion on this discussion.

Zet
September 29th, 2008, 10:51 PM
Gun control/the right to own a gun has been a long debate in time before, and nothing is ever resolved from the debate, though in countries where guns aren't allowed for civilians we solve our fights the good old fashion way, with our fists(or any other method, like talking about it). The needs for guns aren't needed at all, people get guns so they can have more power and with that greed in people's hearts, there will never be a way to resolve gun control/the right to own guns.

So, no I don't believe in gun control/the right to own guns

Kurono
September 30th, 2008, 03:37 AM
I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here.

Guns are tools for killing.

This makes them intimidating, so they will often be used by criminals to get something they want.

(that's assuming they don't already have murderous intent.)

Who knows?

Point is, gun control laws do little to deter criminals who really want some guns.

Nor can you expect officers of the law to be everywhere where their guns might come in handy.

Yeah, there are people that can't be trusted with guns. That's a fact. Of course, guns are here and they are not going anywhere anytime soon. So if you can't beat 'em, why not level the playing field and join them?

supertails
September 30th, 2008, 03:55 AM
By gun control, I'm assuming you mean the right to have a gun? I've never heard of gun control, per say, but that's what I'm going to assume you mean.

With that said, I don't think anyone at all needs a gun except for officials of the community/state you live in. It's strange because my grandfather used to be a police officer and just the other day he tried to show me his old gun. I refused to touch it. It's just natural for me to refuse to touch those kind of things. Most times, people who get guns whether legally or illegally just end up regretting it in the future. I just find it too much of a risk for anyone (other than those who need it -- being police officers and those types of people) to have a gun.

I'm going to compare this with mods for now. Though you may not see the similarities between the two of them and normally these two types of things would be associated with each other anyway:

Moderators are basically the police officers of a community. I know that, you know that, everyone on the internet <should> know(s) that. Moderators go a long time before becoming what they are and gaining the power that they can do to a community. As do police officers. If someone is given that power, for whatever reason, without being trusted, and known that they could do a job like that and handle that kind of power. With that said, even some of them turn bad and do something that screws up with they have.

So clearly, I don't agree with having guns for whatever reason as it's too dangerous. And that's my opinion on this discussion.


Actually gun control is the opposite. Gun Control is basically when the state owns the guns in turn the more gun control you have the harder it is to get a gun. So really by gun control I'm saying that the state should refuse to let normal people have guns not to let people have guns. Though you could say gun control is the right to own guns because the state owns the guns not you.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/guns.shtml

Gunn
September 30th, 2008, 04:13 AM
Yes, I do believe that people have the right to bear arms. Guns are an excellent way to deterrent crimes. Just by the showing of a gun, thousands of violent crimes are prevented, while less than 0.9% of guns in those situations have ever been fired.

During a 21 year period, this chart (http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3556/propertycrimeandhandgunug3.png) shows the increase of handgun supply and how it affected the amount of property crime committed. 60% of criminals say that they avoid homes if they know someone there is armed. The rest say that they avoid homes even when they think someone is armed in the home.

So in other words, gun control is no way reduces crime and rather encourages it.

... and remember, it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

Cherrim
September 30th, 2008, 06:20 AM
I've never understood the need to own a gun. Get a security alarm. Those little stickers you put in your window that say "This home is protected by ____ security company"? THOSE deter crimes too and they'll keep people alerted to break-ins and the like even when you aren't home. It'll let you know someone's breaking in before you hear a crash of them knocking someone over as they loot your things. They hear the alarm start to go off and they get the hell out of there. I just... don't see how a gun is useful, nor do I think it's right to shoot someone for breaking into your house. :| Injuring someone with the possibility of death seems like a much greater crime than stealing--am I the only one who thinks this? (I realize stealing isn't the only crime someone could commit after breaking into a home but unless they're breaking in there to kill you, I don't think shooting them is the right answer.)

However, the problem with gun control is... most of the people who use guns for crime are using stolen guns. Even if there's a gun registry and everyone who owns a handgun or otherwise is listed on it, the guns used in crimes are usually imported from other countries (in Canada, at least, crime guns are usually imported from the US :|) or they're stolen from other people who didn't commit the crime with their gun. There will always be illegal weapon trafficking so in that sense, it won't stop crime at all.

I'm actually rather undecided on how I feel about this issue. I suppose I lean toward a yes for gun control since I just can't fathom why people would really need a gun (or more than one @_@).

Eon-Rider
September 30th, 2008, 06:27 AM
I believe in gun control for the simple fact that I hate anything that isn't natural. I believe humankind was not meant to own tools such as guns. If someone breaks into your house, solve it some other way. The fittest survive right? So go fight the proper way. Owning a gun is a cowards way to win a fight imo.

Yes, my post sounds completely idiotic. =O

Avey
September 30th, 2008, 08:16 AM
I do not oppose gun control. I've been brought up in a country where the possession of firearms gets you arrested. I feel much safer where I live than I think I would if I moved to America or another country that allows its citizens to have their own guns. This way, Ireland doesn't get massacres like the Finland one about a week ago, nobody gets shot. It's really great. Hell, even our police force don't use guns. Well, they do if they're raiding a drug stash but for the most part, they're unarmed in the eyes of the public.

You cannot be sentenced to death in my country. Giving four million people the right to own guns is sentencing several thousand to death in drive-by shootings and misuse of the weapons. I feel safer knowing that when I wake up, I'm not going to see a handgun on my teacher's desk just in case she needs it. Guns are weapons of death and their presence is enough to create a darker and more negative atmosphere.

We have alarms in our houses. We do not need our own way of attacking someone if one was to break in. No one needs to own a gun. The world would be better off without such objects.

Trap-Eds
September 30th, 2008, 08:48 AM
I do not oppose gun control. I've been brought up in a country where the possession of firearms gets you arrested. I feel much safer where I live than I think I would if I moved to America or another country that allows its citizens to have their own guns. This way, Ireland doesn't get massacres like the Finland one about a week ago, nobody gets shot. It's really great. Hell, even our police force don't use guns. Well, they do if they're raiding a drug stash but for the most part, they're unarmed in the eyes of the public.

You cannot be sentenced to death in my country. Giving four million people the right to own guns is sentencing several thousand to death in drive-by shootings and misuse of the weapons. I feel safer knowing that when I wake up, I'm not going to see a handgun on my teacher's desk just in case she needs it. Guns are weapons of death and their presence is enough to create a darker and more negative atmosphere.

We have alarms in our houses. We do not need our own way of attacking someone if one was to break in. No one needs to own a gun. The world would be better off without such objects.

Huh. I kinda wish I lived wherever you live sos' I wouldn't have to worry about all the crazed psyhcos running around.

Gun Control is basically when the state owns the guns in turn the more gun control you have the harder it is to get a gun.

Yes, I believe in that. The less people with guns, the less violence would be out there-I think. *thinks of truTV and all the other retarded things people do*

Gunn
September 30th, 2008, 09:50 AM
The less people with guns, the less violence would be out there-I think.

Not quite. Guns are not the blame for violent crimes nor are they often used in crimes. Even if guns were in possession during the crime, 83% of the time they were not used or threatened with. The state of Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control law in the nation, yet it ranks highest in robberies and fourth in violent crime and murder; gun control just doesn't work. Even New Zealand had to repeal their gun registration law in the 1980s because the police found it worthless. It's not the gun availability that causes crimes.

Netto Azure
September 30th, 2008, 10:01 AM
Well for my rushed 1 hr. WH essay I was for Gun Control....And just like other Gun Control activists I emphasized the Second Amendment's "a well regulated militia" clause....To me it's fun playing Counter-S but real life is no videogame....

Midnight Beat
September 30th, 2008, 01:27 PM
Think about it this way. Don't hold me to these statistics, but I'd say about 90% of gun related crimes take place with an illegally obtained fire arm. So if you take guns away from the people that get them legally, what have you done? You've ended 10% of gun crimes, but increased ten fold the number of people who will be harmed by a gun because they didn't have equal protection.

And what about people who get guns for the purpose of hunting or target shooting? Target shooting is an Olympic sport you know.

txteclipse
September 30th, 2008, 01:45 PM
Mmm. This one's hard. There's both positive and negative aspects to allowing people to have guns.

Scenario A: a woman leaves a party late at night, and the street lights are far away from where she parked her car. She gets into her vehicle, and realizes that a man she doesn't know was waiting nearby and is now moving quickly to her open door: a rapist. If she has a gun in her glove box, there's a good chance she will be able to fend this guy off without him so much as getting close to her.

So guns are certainly a crime deterrent. I actually based this example loosely off of a true story I read in which a woman used a gun in multiple instances to thwart would-be muggers/rapists.

Scenario B: a family that lives in a bad part of town keeps a gun in the house for protection. The dad keeps it in his nightstand drawer, so he will be able to reach it quickly if someone enters the house. One day, their young child finds the gun and accidentally shoots and kills himself while playing with it.

I don't think anyone would argue that guns are extremely dangerous, and that accidents like this can and do happen far too often. I believe in the right to bear arms, but guns most definitely aren't for everyone. I don't think I will ever own one, for instance.

supertails
September 30th, 2008, 02:19 PM
I've never understood the need to own a gun. Get a security alarm. Those little stickers you put in your window that say "This home is protected by ____ security company"? THOSE deter crimes too and they'll keep people alerted to break-ins and the like even when you aren't home. It'll let you know someone's breaking in before you hear a crash of them knocking someone over as they loot your things. They hear the alarm start to go off and they get the hell out of there. I just... don't see how a gun is useful, nor do I think it's right to shoot someone for breaking into your house. :| Injuring someone with the possibility of death seems like a much greater crime than stealing--am I the only one who thinks this? (I realize stealing isn't the only crime someone could commit after breaking into a home but unless they're breaking in there to kill you, I don't think shooting them is the right answer.)

However, the problem with gun control is... most of the people who use guns for crime are using stolen guns. Even if there's a gun registry and everyone who owns a handgun or otherwise is listed on it, the guns used in crimes are usually imported from other countries (in Canada, at least, crime guns are usually imported from the US :|) or they're stolen from other people who didn't commit the crime with their gun. There will always be illegal weapon trafficking so in that sense, it won't stop crime at all.

I'm actually rather undecided on how I feel about this issue. I suppose I lean toward a yes for gun control since I just can't fathom why people would really need a gun (or more than one @_@).

I can agree with that but at times gun control does keep guns away. Why do you think most armed robberies aren't done with AK-47s but with hand guns?

Mmm. This one's hard. There's both positive and negative aspects to allowing people to have guns.

Scenario A: a woman leaves a party late at night, and the street lights are far away from where she parked her car. She gets into her vehicle, and realizes that a man she doesn't know was waiting nearby and is now moving quickly to her open door: a rapist. If she has a gun in her glove box, there's a good chance she will be able to fend this guy off without him so much as getting close to her.

So guns are certainly a crime deterrent. I actually based this example loosely off of a true story I read in which a woman used a gun in multiple instances to thwart would-be muggers/rapists.

Scenario B: a family that lives in a bad part of town keeps a gun in the house for protection. The dad keeps it in his nightstand drawer, so he will be able to reach it quickly if someone enters the house. One day, their young child finds the gun and accidentally shoots and kills himself while playing with it.

I don't think anyone would argue that guns are extremely dangerous, and that accidents like this can and do happen far too often. I believe in the right to bear arms, but guns most definitely aren't for everyone. I don't think I will ever own one, for instance.

I don't believe in the right to bear arms unless your really important or in the armed forces and that counts the police.

LethalTexture
September 30th, 2008, 11:02 PM
From what you're saying in your first post it seems to me that you're suggesting homeowners have a choice between either an alarm or a gun. Why can't they have both?

But I'm digressing here. In my opinion, guns are one of the worst inventions in the history of mankind (right up there with cigarretes) and it should be highly illegal to even own one unless you are enrolled in the armed forces. Some naive people just don't realise the destructive force of a mere handgun, never mind something like a shotgun.

So yes, I am in favour of gun control. As far as I'm aware, it is high over here in the UK; hardly any homeowners over here would protect their home with one.

supertails
October 1st, 2008, 04:29 AM
From what you're saying in your first post it seems to me that you're suggesting homeowners have a choice between either an alarm or a gun. Why can't they have both?

But I'm digressing here. In my opinion, guns are one of the worst inventions in the history of mankind (right up there with cigarretes) and it should be highly illegal to even own one unless you are enrolled in the armed forces. Some naive people just don't realise the destructive force of a mere handgun, never mind something like a shotgun.

So yes, I am in favour of gun control. As far as I'm aware, it is high over here in the UK; hardly any homeowners over here would protect their home with one.

That's because in the US they do and they can have both but it doesn't mean I have to like it though. I kinda agree with you that they are the worst and I'm all for them be illegal unless you're in the armed forces. I'd say our medical plan is worst but the worst is the Fed Reserve act. As far as I rate money I'd say money is neither good or bad because even though money as done a lot of villainy, it has also done heroic stuff too. A good quote I like a lot goes " The love of money is the root of all evil." Though money isn't evil, greed is and it kills.

Noah Ridgewood
October 1st, 2008, 04:34 AM
Mmm. This one's hard. There's both positive and negative aspects to allowing people to have guns.

Scenario A: a woman leaves a party late at night, and the street lights are far away from where she parked her car. She gets into her vehicle, and realizes that a man she doesn't know was waiting nearby and is now moving quickly to her open door: a rapist. If she has a gun in her glove box, there's a good chance she will be able to fend this guy off without him so much as getting close to her.

So guns are certainly a crime deterrent. I actually based this example loosely off of a true story I read in which a woman used a gun in multiple instances to thwart would-be muggers/rapists.

Scenario B: a family that lives in a bad part of town keeps a gun in the house for protection. The dad keeps it in his nightstand drawer, so he will be able to reach it quickly if someone enters the house. One day, their young child finds the gun and accidentally shoots and kills himself while playing with it.

I don't think anyone would argue that guns are extremely dangerous, and that accidents like this can and do happen far too often. I believe in the right to bear arms, but guns most definitely aren't for everyone. I don't think I will ever own one, for instance.


Okay, so, I made the mistake last night at reading Scenario A both in the dark and at night. And it seriously scared me to the point where I was too scared to go to sleep. Sooo..., I guess I shouldn't read these kind of things in the middle of the night.

Though I am against guns even being in existence, with that said, in Scenario B, people should know better than that. Even if it was for their protection, not to go leaving guns on nightstands where small children can reach it. Now that's just stupid. It's not like you wouldn't have enough time if someone were to break into your home in the middle of the night and you having heard it to run to the closet or something and pull it from a high shelf.


I can agree with that but at times gun control does keep guns away. Why do you think most armed robberies aren't done with AK-47s but with hand guns?



I don't believe in the right to bear arms unless your really important or in the armed forces and that counts the police.

Oh right. So just because you don't have an important part in the community, you shouldn't allowed to defend yourself regardless of what it is.

Now that right there just seems really cold and cruel in my opinion. Limiting the right to bear arms to just those in the armed forces and all those types? Now that's just not right. Everyone, regardless of who they are should have the right to defend themselves if need be. Now having said that, I'm not saying that guns should be included in this right as I've pretty much stated that I am against them ever being created. Everyone is important. Everyone contributes to the society. That's like saying, "Supertails, you're not important. If someone comes up to you and attempts to rob you, you have to let them do so."

The right to bear arms was meant to prevent that type of thing, you know?

Cherrim
October 1st, 2008, 04:57 AM
@DeanoDance: Well, in my post I didn't say they couldn't have both, but why bother? The only real argument given FOR people owning guns (except one) is that it deters people from breaking into homes. But alarms do too, and arguably even BEFORE the criminal even decides to break into your home. They see the sticker, know an alarm will go off if they can't provide the security code and that the police will be called. I don't know maybe it's very different in the states but do people put big signs on their lawn saying "I HAVE A GUN; DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE >:O" How would criminals know which houses to avoid based on whether they have a gun or not? And this is all assuming they break in while you're even HOME. We all have mental images of robbers slipping into your house in the dead of night but they're more likely to break in during the day when no one's home. I think, anyway. I don't care enough to go research it right now. :| I know you aren't even for guns but you did bring up the alarms vs. guns thing. :O

As for the owning a handgun to fend off rapists/muggers argument? (Now addressing a different person and I'm too lazy to quote. XD) I don't think that'd be necessary. If pepper spray is too harmless, that's why a fair amount of women have tazers. Not... that I agree with that either, but regardless, guns aren't always the best answer. I just don't agree with needing to own one for self-defence.

And lastly, for the point about having guns for sport--I'm okay with that. That's why I believe in a strict gun registry. Canada has one and I believe that when you buy a gun here there's a lot to be done. Firstly, YOU have to be approved. There's a firearms saftey course you must take, there are background checks, and you must be licensed before you register your gun with the RCMP.
I can agree with that but at times gun control does keep guns away. Why do you think most armed robberies aren't done with AK-47s but with hand guns?
o_O Because it's a hell of a lot easier to get your hands on a handgun, not to mention you'd have a lot of trouble hiding an AK-47 in your jacket pocket and keeping it subtly hidden while you held up a store and it'd be incredibly awkward to break into a house, steal the valueables, and get back out with anything larger than a typical handgun. Common sense, dude.
Okay, so, I made the mistake last night at reading Scenario A both in the dark and at night. And it seriously scared me to the point where I was too scared to go to sleep. Sooo..., I guess I shouldn't read these kind of things in the middle of the night.

Though I am against guns even being in existence, with that said, in Scenario B, people should know better than that. Even if it was for their protection, not to go leaving guns on nightstands where small children can reach it. Now that's just stupid. It's not like you wouldn't have enough time if someone were to break into your home in the middle of the night and you having heard it to run to the closet or something and pull it from a high shelf.




Oh right. So just because you don't have an important part in the community, you shouldn't allowed to defend yourself regardless of what it is.

Now that right there just seems really cold and cruel in my opinion. Limiting the right to bear arms to just those in the armed forces and all those types? Now that's just not right. Everyone, regardless of who they are should have the right to defend themselves if need be. Now having said that, I'm not saying that guns should be included in this right as I've pretty much stated that I am against them ever being created. Everyone is important. Everyone contributes to the society. That's like saying, "Supertails, you're not important. If someone comes up to you and attempts to rob you, you have to let them do so."

The right to bear arms was meant to prevent that type of thing, you know?
He never said that. He said they should be the ones with the right to have a gun. There are TONS of ways to protect yourself that don't involve a gun.

Noah Ridgewood
October 1st, 2008, 04:59 AM
He never said that. He said they should be the ones with the right to have a gun. There are TONS of ways to protect yourself that don't involve a gun.
Well then I completely misread that. D:
And if that's the case, then I completely agree with him.

Sora_8920
October 1st, 2008, 05:04 AM
Yes, I believe in it. But I don't think guns are relevant. Just use a alarm like aforementioned.

Maria Santos
October 1st, 2008, 06:20 AM
I have mixed feelings about this...

I am all for owning a gun but I agree there must be some regulation on it, but not some total ban. I am more towards pro gun because twice has the situation has come up in my life in which it was needed and both times they served me well.

just my opinion.

BeachBoy
October 1st, 2008, 06:34 AM
Tough topic. I'm leaning with Disintegration, yet on the other hand agree with Eon-Rider and some others. ;/

You can make guns and their ability to obtain such harder and much more strict, but someone will find a way to beat "the system", no matter what.

Could ban guns or create the illusion of "controlling" them. Although you can still bet there's a heck of great chance they'll still be able to get their hands on a firearm. That's just how I see it, you can up strict laws, whatever, it's really just creating the illusion of safety, while there are still many many people, some violent, having the ability to obtain a firearm. (And you can't "control" the firearms that people already illegally own, can you?)

The simple glance of a gun deters many people, criminals even. Yet it is a powerful weapon that can take a life away. I don't know. I've heard of too many times where an NFL player was killed by a gun, yet if he had one, could have had the chance to save his life in some way. The "protection" a glance of a gun can provide is enormous. No matter how many other ways there are to defend yourself, guns are easily the most effective weapon at a glance to deter someone or something from happening. I just don't know. =/

The state of Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control law in the nation, yet it ranks highest in robberies and fourth in violent crime and murder; gun control just doesn't work. Even New Zealand had to repeal their gun registration law in the 1980s because the police found it worthless. It's not the gun availability that causes crimes.Great point.

Ravecat
October 1st, 2008, 06:48 AM
I'm going to register and buy a .22 rifle as soon as I turn eighteen (and can afford it).

http://www.adelaidegunshop.com.au/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/5c6f708ec9108494822417adf6f66a50.jpg
The Remington 7615 Tactical. What a beauty.

txteclipse
October 1st, 2008, 07:31 AM
I don't think an overall ban of guns (including from the military and stuff) is ever going to happen. Armies use the newest and most effective technology: right now that happens to be guns.

Think of it this way: all countries would ban guns, and then one would say "hey, they can't defend themselves if we start manufacturing guns again!" So they re-equip their military with guns, get in a few free kills while everyone else starts using guns again, and then we're back at square one.

EDIT: Am I really the only "not sure?" XD

Trap-Eds
October 1st, 2008, 07:31 AM
I'm going to register and buy a .22 rifle as soon as I turn eighteen (and can afford it).
The Remington 7615 Tactical. What a beauty.

So I'm guessing you don't believe in gun control?

Cherrim
October 1st, 2008, 07:37 AM
I don't think an overall ban of guns (including from the military and stuff) is ever going to happen. Armies use the newest and most effective technology: right now that happens to be guns.
I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that would ever be a viable option. We're talking about banning guns from the general populous, or at least restricting their purchase. o.o

txteclipse
October 1st, 2008, 07:53 AM
I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that would ever be a viable option. We're talking about banning guns from the general populous, or at least restricting their purchase. o.o
Wait...I think I misread someone's post somewhere. I for some reason thought someone said that guns shouldn't be made at all. My bad. -_-'

Cherrim
October 1st, 2008, 08:02 AM
I think one or two people did mention it, but only as opinion. For example, I feel guns shouldn't ever have been invented but that's not gonna do me much good right now.

Um, another note I'm kind of curious about: is anyone in a country that is NOT the United States and does that country support guns? I mean, I mentioned in a previous post what Canada's stance on guns is for now. It's a rather strict gun registry and the general population seems to disapprove of guns in general. What's it like in other countries? Are the majority of "regular" people for or against guns? What's the government's stance? I'm curious. :x

Maria Santos
October 1st, 2008, 09:09 AM
another note I'm kind of curious about: is anyone in a country that is NOT the United States and does that country support guns? I mean, I mentioned in a previous post what Canada's stance on guns is for now. It's a rather strict gun registry and the general population seems to disapprove of guns in general. What's it like in other countries? Are the majority of "regular" people for or against guns? What's the government's stance? I'm curious. :x

Well from what I see it, many colombians i know can even stand the sight of a gun. then again i knew plenty that were toting em around. for example my uncles there. they got guns in multiple in every practical place they can hide one. Most reason why is because of sicarios that target people all the time for any amount of money they can get their hands on. happened to my uncle more than 4 times. 2 times jumped after he left the bank, and twice when they tried to invade his home. We are not including the Jamundi incident >_>

Lots of folks down in colombia disapprove of it yet many approve. its the way it is. The gun registry is not so tight but to make up for it they stop people on buses and other areas all the time just to make sure they arent packing heat without the guns ID and the owners ID. Seriously we have gotten pulled over more than 6 times in one week. So you could say the government there is pretty tight with it. but alas, the system aint perfect. =/

Master Electrician
October 1st, 2008, 09:26 AM
I grew up with firearms, I started learning to shoot when I was six with a .22 air rifle and have continued since. It seems that the general assumption is that in the U.S., an individual can simply go out and purchase a .45 pistol. Uh-uh. Mandatory pistol safety and marksmanship classes, registry and ID, background check, and then a much more intensive course if you want a concealed carry permit. Fact is, there are parts of my hometown I don't want to go anywhere near without at least a knife, preferably something more substantial.

Yes, illegal firearms are a problem. But you outlaw guns, people are still going to purchase them, and now almost all of them will be off the radar. Furthermore, in rural areas, farmers often need rifles, shotguns, etc. as a matter of expediency. A single herd of deer can ruin an entire crop.

So, if you speak of gun control as outlawing firearms, I oppose it. If you speak of it as regulating firearms, then I support it. Your question is inappropriately vague.

Gunn
October 1st, 2008, 10:27 AM
Scenario B: a family that lives in a bad part of town keeps a gun in the house for protection. The dad keeps it in his nightstand drawer, so he will be able to reach it quickly if someone enters the house. One day, their young child finds the gun and accidentally shoots and kills himself while playing with it.

I can tell you how likely that will not happen. Only fewer than 2% of all unintentional deaths for children in the US are caused by firearms while 51% are caused by motor vehicle accidents according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Your children are more like to die in a car than from a firearm. Cars are not the only common causes of deaths for children neither. In 2001, there were only 72 accidental firearm deaths for children under the age of 15. During that same year, there were over 2,100 children who died drowning; that is 29 times more drowning deaths than firearm deaths. Other common accidental deaths (followed by drowning) are from fire, suffocation, pedestrians, other land transportation, falling, and poisoning. Even these are relatively low in percentages but not as low as firearm deaths, while automobile accidents remain the highest (51%). Even the United States non-gun homicide for children is twice as high in other western countries. I can completely see where you are coming from though. I know no one parents wants their children to be apart of any percentage, no matter how low it is.

That's why I believe in a strict gun registry. Canada has one and I believe that when you buy a gun here there's a lot to be done.

Yeah, but it's not doing the job. More than 20,000 Canadian gun owners have refused to their firearms and some provinces aren't even prosecuting those who fail to register. A bill to abolish the registry has been introduced (eliminating the registry) in the parliament.

Jack O'Neill
October 1st, 2008, 12:17 PM
I believe in gun control for the simple fact that I hate anything that isn't natural. I believe humankind was not meant to own tools such as guns. If someone breaks into your house, solve it some other way. The fittest survive right? So go fight the proper way. Owning a gun is a cowards way to win a fight imo.

Yes, my post sounds completely idiotic. =O
Yes, completely and utterly idiotic. How do you think the homeowner's going to retaliate against an invasion of his property, using harsh language? He'll get his skull bashed in with a tire iron or get shot with a 9mm if he mouths off. Now, give the homeowner a 9mm of his own, and he's just leveled the playing field.

Prudence and cowardice are two very different things. Know that.

suicidesal
October 1st, 2008, 12:19 PM
Guns are silly and can turn against you, if you really want to protect yourself from a home invader- learn martial arts/self defense.

Motsuko Live
October 1st, 2008, 12:19 PM
What if you purchased a gun, and an alarm? Anyway, I do agree with you. I live in Canada, and I'm pretty sure we have some kind of gun control over here; you need to have a license, and you're not allowed to carry it around (I think). Though either way, it's not that hard to buy a gun illegally... if you know where.

Lusankya
October 1st, 2008, 12:32 PM
Well, if you want to reduce deadly crimes, then no-guns is the way to go! The victim having a gun won't reduce his chances of being hurt any if the criminal also has a gun, which he probably will. And since the criminal, being the aggressor, is more likely to have a gun than the victim, the victim is most likely going to be the one hurt by the gun. So, saying we should have guns to defend ourselves from criminals isn't actually a logical argument.

Anyways, there's no practical reason why civilians should be able to get guns so easily. The only benefits are psychological, purely in your mind. Want to go hunting? Then go buy a crossbow. It takes more skill.

txteclipse
October 1st, 2008, 12:54 PM
Anyways, there's no practical reason why civilians should be able to get guns so easily. The only benefits are psychological, purely in your mind. Want to go hunting? Then go buy a crossbow. It takes more skill.

But the psychological benefit is also in the aggressor's mind, if you see what I mean...they usually won't mess with you if you have a weapon. That's kind of the idea.

The problem I have is that if people can't buy guns legally, then the only people getting them will be getting them illegally, which means that they already have a predisposition for crime. So if you have a bunch of criminals still getting guns, and a bunch of citizens not able to buy guns to defend themselves, said criminals would instantly have the upper hand.

And crossbows could still present a problem. They're quiet, first of all, and I don't think they need to be registered, but don't quote me on that. They are inherently bigger than handguns, however, and would thus be harder to conceal.

Noah Ridgewood
October 1st, 2008, 12:59 PM
Wait...I think I misread someone's post somewhere. I for some reason thought someone said that guns shouldn't be made at all. My bad. -_-'

No, you didn't misread that. I said that. Not meaning that they should stop making them but they shouldn't have been made in the first place. (Which if you thought that, then you misread it)

Meaning: The word gun = never said because it doesn't exist.

txteclipse
October 1st, 2008, 01:10 PM
No, you didn't misread that. I said that. Not meaning that they should stop making them but they shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Meaning: The word gun = never said because it doesn't exist.

Ah. I see what you mean.

The thing is that weaponry and armor progress in an endless cycle, and new technologies are adapted into weaponry and/or armor if possible. For instance: enemy throws rocks, we wear padded clothing. Enemy creates knives, we wear armor made of bone and wood. Enemy invents swords, we create metal armor, and so on and so forth. In effect, guns may have been inevitable from the beginning. We would have eventually discovered pyrotechnics and gunpowder, and someone would have noticed its destructive potential.

The debate over whether to use that potential or not is a moot point...wars are pretty much inevitable, unfortunately. Someone's going to want that power, therefore, and despite the creator's intentions, as long as some palms are being greased, weapons will be made.

Violence is much quicker and more effective than talking...the loser is shut up forever, instantly in the case of a gun fight. It's why so many choose to go this route.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
October 1st, 2008, 01:17 PM
lololol

guns :D

I remember the last gun thread.
but in this one, I'ma gonna be less of a prick. ^^

You see, making normal people unable to purchase a gun goes against the constitution.
rendering it unconstitutional, and banned from ever having that happen again.

well, atleast in the US.

It's funny how this kind of stuff thats "unconstitutional" killed off the federalists.

...
what?

you don't know what a federalist is?
that proves my point.

---

anyway, before I get hate mail and anti-war nuts up my neck with this and that,
I better rap this up quick:

Guns kill.
There is nothing we can do about that.

People will own guns.
There is nothing we can do about that.

Guns will get into the wrong hands.
There is nothing we can do about that.

so moral of the story?
Live. With. It.

Red1530
October 1st, 2008, 01:58 PM
I believe that gun bans actually increase crime. Washington, D.C., for example has one of the highest crime rates and until the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller a ban on the passion of handguns and rifles and shotguns stored disassembled. Recently a homeowner in Tusculum, TN shot a two robbers (http://www.wsmv.com/news/17588458/detail.html#SLANTLY_commentformheight::292), killing one and wounding the other. The wounded one is currently in police custody.

Lusankya
October 1st, 2008, 02:50 PM
But the psychological benefit is also in the aggressor's mind, if you see what I mean...they usually won't mess with you if you have a weapon. That's kind of the idea.

The problem I have is that if people can't buy guns legally, then the only people getting them will be getting them illegally, which means that they already have a predisposition for crime. So if you have a bunch of criminals still getting guns, and a bunch of citizens not able to buy guns to defend themselves, said criminals would instantly have the upper hand.

And crossbows could still present a problem. They're quiet, first of all, and I don't think they need to be registered, but don't quote me on that. They are inherently bigger than handguns, however, and would thus be harder to conceal.

Txt, while I practically worship you, I'm going to have to disagree here.

I'm fairly sure that there's a law saying that any guns you have for self-defense on your person (so, not hunting) must be concealed while on your person in public, meaning that a criminal won't see the gun. So, let's imagine the following scenario:

A person walks into a dark alley. A criminal jumps out from behind a dumpster and points a gun at him, then demands the person's wallet and valuables. The person pulls out his own gun and points it at the criminal, creating a very volatile standoff. Because neither person can be confident that the other person won't shoot them, even if they both say they're going to, neither person wants to be the person who puts their gun down first. Meaning that chances are, someone's going to get shot.

Now take this same situation, but replace the guns, with, oh say, knives. In knife fights you can run away much more easily than in a gunfight, and knife fights longer, meaning you have more time to call for help and such. By decreasing the deadliness and speed of the weapons being used, you drastically decrease the chances of people getting hurt, and how badly they'll be hurt.

This of course changes when guns can be obtained by one side but not the other. However, that's an issue with enforcing the ban on guns. Given how many guns there are in the US, it will take a long time to really get rid of all the guns, but a no-gun society is much safer than a gunned one. Basically what I'm saying here is: If guns are banned, then the government and law enforcement should be really stepping up their actions to prevent guns from being obtained illegally.

Oh, and lastly, crossbows and normal bows aren't nearly as effective weapons for criminals because they take skill and strength to use, and are much harder to aim.

supertails
October 1st, 2008, 03:38 PM
I agree with you there and also a bow can't fit though a car window. Actually a lot of laws state that you have to show a gun on you at all times. It's a lot harder to get a pistol then a rifle. I think it's because if people can see it, they can run and hide.

Gunn
October 1st, 2008, 06:29 PM
So, saying we should have guns to defend ourselves from criminals isn't actually a logical argument.

What? It's perfectly logical. All the time people in the US defend themselves with a gun against criminals and most of them claim that they are very certain the successful gun defense saved their lives; even in most of these gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first. That proves guns are well-suited for self defense. Firearms are used more often to save lives than to take them. 60 more times to be exact.

So taking that to an extent, you are far more likely to survive a violent assault with a gun while no injury or deaths occur at the same time to anyone. If you were to use some sort of non-violent resistance, you are 45% more likely to be injured as opposed to the 6% of injury that occurred in using a gun to defend yourself.

Midnight Beat
October 1st, 2008, 06:35 PM
Guns are silly and can turn against you, if you really want to protect yourself from a home invader- learn martial arts/self defense.

....I can't believe no one has quoted this yet. Now, I'm all for martial arts, in fact, I'm a blackbelt. But the matter of the fact is if someone with gun breaks into my house and is farther than five feet from me, I'm screwed. Martial arts have their limitation.

txteclipse
October 1st, 2008, 11:03 PM
Txt, while I practically worship you, I'm going to have to disagree here.

Good lord I like these forums. I was on another one for a few days and I literally left because people couldn't hold a debate without starting to flame each other.

That said, it's completely fine. I respect your opinion and your arguments.

supertails
October 3rd, 2008, 10:11 AM
....I can't believe no one has quoted this yet. Now, I'm all for martial arts, in fact, I'm a blackbelt. But the matter of the fact is if someone with gun breaks into my house and is farther than five feet from me, I'm screwed. Martial arts have their limitation.

If you were wearing armor then you wouldn't be.

Lusankya
October 3rd, 2008, 10:18 AM
No one wears full battle armor 24/7.

What? It's perfectly logical. All the time people in the US defend themselves with a gun against criminals and most of them claim that they are very certain the successful gun defense saved their lives; even in most of these gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first. That proves guns are well-suited for self defense. Firearms are used more often to save lives than to take them. 60 more times to be exact.

So taking that to an extent, you are far more likely to survive a violent assault with a gun while no injury or deaths occur at the same time to anyone. If you were to use some sort of non-violent resistance, you are 45% more likely to be injured as opposed to the 6% of injury that occurred in using a gun to defend yourself.

While you do make a point, the number of people who die of criminal activity in a country without any guns is far lower than a country with guns, that's a numerical fact. If both sides have guns, then it's far more likely for a person to die than if neither do. You can outrun a person with a knife; you can't outrun a bullet.

supertails
October 3rd, 2008, 10:58 AM
I can agree with you on both of those.

Gunn
October 3rd, 2008, 11:37 AM
... the number of people who die of criminal activity in a country without any guns is far lower than a country with guns, that's a numerical fact.

You sure about that? Lets take a look at the violent crime activity in the UK. The United Kingdom's ban on handguns was enacted after the Dublane Massacre. This banning has actually risen the rate of crime, especially violent crime, in a mere two years after it was enacted. What's ironic about it is that the use of firearms in crime has doubled in the very same decade handguns were banned. Even this 2001 article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm) claims that a new study suggested that the use of handguns in crimes have went up.

You know what else went up too? Street robberies, murder, and rape. Between 1997 and 1999 there were 429 murders in London. That is the highest two year figure in a decade with nearly two-third of those deaths involving firearms while the handgun ban is still in affect. In 1999-2000, the handgun homicides have reached its all time high in England and Wales, with more than 3,000 crimes committed including cases of attempted murder, robberies, and burglary. These rises have occurred nearly after the handgun banishment, which is clearly not doing anything to lower crime rates or doing anything for safety.

Lusankya
October 3rd, 2008, 11:58 AM
Well let's look at another statistic as of 2000: France, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, has a murder rate of 0.0173272 per 1,000 people. The United States, on the other hand, has 0.042802 murders per 1,000 people, about 3 times as many. Even in the UK, they have about 0.0140633 per 1,000 people, still much lower than even France's. In fact, nearly every European country (as well as Canada) has a lower murder rate than the United States's, who has some of the loosest gun control laws of any developed nation.

supertails
October 3rd, 2008, 01:02 PM
Even if banning guns made the crime rate higher it wouldn't be higher for long. You have to destroy before you can build. You have to remove stuff from your room before you can clean it and you have to destroy a building before you can build from it. When you're investing you have to spend money to make money. It's all the same pretty much.

Black_Wolf
October 3rd, 2008, 01:22 PM
Now, I keep reading all these thing about crime. Yes, it's true that guns contribute to crime, but what most people should understand is that most gun owners have respect for their firearms.

I'm an NRA member and former U.S. Marine, so I'm against gun control. Why? That is the flaw of gun control...it limits and bans law abiding citizens from getting or keeping legal firearms. Criminals do not care about the law. Why should I give up my weapons when the ones more likely to cause harm won't?

Though, I don't really see an issue with a more thorough background checks or reasonable waiting periods (if your not a criminal you have nothing to worry about), I would actually like to see some kind of control on 2nd had gun sales- Once you sell a weapon to someone , in a way you are still responsible for where it ends up- I would rather destroy my own firearm than have it used in a crime-

And these "Accidents" that occur with guns aren't accidents, if not so much having to do with the irresponsibility and stupidity of the gun owner. These can easily be avoided with locks and a gun-safe.

Guns are silly and can turn against you, if you really want to protect yourself from a home invader- learn martial arts/self defense.
Martial arts as a whole is actually pretty useless as protection. That, and the fact that even I wouldn't try hand to hand combat on someone who I didn't have intentions on ending.

Lusankya
October 3rd, 2008, 03:11 PM
Well, let me clarify my position here a little: I believe that if, in a hypothetical universe, it were possible to completely eradicate guns from the civilian markets, either legally or illegally, the world would be a much better place. But, I am against gun control because I don't think that from a practical standpoint, it is possible to actually do so, especially in the US, where it would probably take generations to actually create a gun-free or nearly gun-free society. They're just too common, and it's too difficult to enforce the laws.

supertails
October 3rd, 2008, 03:52 PM
FDR was able to take most of our gold so our guns will be no problem.

Kenshin5
October 3rd, 2008, 03:55 PM
If you were wearing armor then you wouldn't be.
Why would you being wearing armor in your house?

supertails
October 3rd, 2008, 04:02 PM
You suit up and fight evil.

Kenshin5
October 3rd, 2008, 04:04 PM
So when you get dressed in the morning or whenever you get dressed you suit up in your body armor?

supertails
October 3rd, 2008, 04:09 PM
I don't even own a pair. They cost tons.

Red1530
October 3rd, 2008, 07:20 PM
In an article from August 26, 2007 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece), the United Kingdom Home Office released data that since the gun ban in the United kingdom was enacted, gun injuries and deaths went up, not down. I think something other then firearm ownership is the cause of the murder rate difference between Europe and the United States because Finland has a low murder rate despite the high level of firearm ownership.

Lusankya
October 4th, 2008, 05:16 AM
Again, that's an issue of actually keeping guns off the street, not just making a law that says you should. Laws have to be enforced to have any meaning, and bad attempts at enforcing them are even worse than no enforcement at all.