PDA

View Full Version : Should people be able to own guns?


Forever
May 5th, 2010, 01:16 AM
I think people should be able to use them only when someone is pointing a gun at them. This could limit problems with accidental deaths that guns often cause. Do you agree?

FaithInMe
May 5th, 2010, 01:21 AM
Heck yes people should be allowed them, I love guns.
As far as accidental deaths go, I think theres actually very few.
Most people that get shot, were meant to get shot, and quite possibly deserved to be.

curiousnathan
May 5th, 2010, 01:30 AM
No, thankyou. People who own guns simply are having alot of power and there is alot of responsibility of owning such a powerful thing. I do agree, though if you are in trouble; but killing someone who so called 'deserved it' is making you just as bad as the offender.

Zeffy
May 5th, 2010, 01:36 AM
Guns? Oh you mean those things that has a bullet.

Here in our country, people can own guns. There are a few conditions, though which are: 1.) He/She must be of legal age. 2.)It, the gun, must be registered to the government. I don't know about other places though.

If it's a toy gun then everyone can own those!

FaithInMe
May 5th, 2010, 01:36 AM
Meh, just because you have one doesnt mean you even have to see it ever.
You could just have it in a drawer or cupboard or something and only take it out occasionally if you go hunting or something-or-other.
Human nature I believe would dictate whether or not any one individual is able to kill someone.
I dont think everyone is capable of it to be honest.
That, however, is a little bit off topic.

Zet
May 5th, 2010, 01:39 AM
No, I think the only people who should be able to use guns are police officers(only when on duty) and people on the defence force(only for wars and other things like training).

There's too many deaths and wounded people from guns and as to what FaithInMe said, I disagree, anyone will get shot for no reason at all or from a mugging so I don't think those people deserved it.

FaithInMe
May 5th, 2010, 01:43 AM
I did say "most", not meaning ALL.
Some of course dont deserve it.
Im not implying that innocent people who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time deserved to be killed.
Its just unlucky really.
But none of it has any effect on me so I dont really care.

Guillermo
May 5th, 2010, 02:41 AM
No, I think the only people who should be able to use guns are police officers(only when on duty) and people on the defence force(only for wars and other things like training).

There's too many deaths and wounded people from guns and as to what FaithInMe said, I disagree, anyone will get shot for no reason at all or from a mugging so I don't think those people deserved it.
Farmers need guns to shoot rabbits or foxes, as they destroy their crops and attack their farm animals, as well as hunters who shoot animals and sell them to butchers.

Personally, I don't think guns are necessary. If we weren't so screwed up as a society, we wouldn't need guns.

Zebeedoo
May 5th, 2010, 03:22 AM
Um. No. It's way too dangerous. Some people might go nuts with a gun and start killing people just for the heck of it. Police officers should be the only people allowed guns imo.

Zet
May 5th, 2010, 03:42 AM
Farmers need guns to shoot rabbits or foxes, as they destroy their crops and attack their farm animals, as well as hunters who shoot animals and sell them to butchers.

Personally, I don't think guns are necessary. If we weren't so screwed up as a society, we wouldn't need guns.

They can just use an electric fence or something else to keep them away.

Guillermo
May 5th, 2010, 03:46 AM
They can just use an electric fence or something else to keep them away.
Farms are more often than not out in the country. It'd be easier to use a gun. And what about hunters?

Binary
May 5th, 2010, 05:44 AM
No, I don't think that people should be able to own guns. Even if they do, they should have a license and government approvement. I guess it could be used for self-protection but it may end up in the wrong hands. So, no. There's always the police.

Jolene
May 5th, 2010, 05:54 AM
Yes, but I think that they should be used only for sports like at a shooting range (but no hunting animals). I think they should not be used for self-defense.

My daddy loves his guns, but only for sports and stuff.

ANARCHit3cht
May 5th, 2010, 06:33 AM
It really depends on who you are, and what your job is. Police Officers, and Soldiers are a given. But others need them to make money(i.e. hunter) and farmers to keep their farm free from wild animals. Regular people shouldn't own guns, they don't need them. It is kind of ridiculous that a lot of people need them to feel protected..

FreakyLocz14
May 5th, 2010, 07:07 AM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The U.S. Supreme Court interperted the following Amendment to mean everyday citizens have the right to own guns when it struck down the D.C. gun ban in D.C. v. Heller.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

I agree 100% percent. Everybody has the right to own a firearm bar convicted felons and the insane.

Elite Overlord LeSabre™
May 5th, 2010, 07:23 AM
I'm going to say yes here, as banning guns isn't gonna keep them out of the hands of a criminal who's determined enough. Most people should be allowed access to guns, unless they're underage, have a past history of violence, or exhibit certain warning signs of using violence in the future.

SalemGreen
May 5th, 2010, 07:25 AM
A gun, to this day, has never killed someone.

Neither has alcohol.

Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean that something they hold is dangerous. It just means they are dangerous. Don't ban guns, ban stupid people.

Forever
May 5th, 2010, 07:28 AM
A gun, to this day, has never killed someone.

Neither has alcohol.

Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean that something they hold is dangerous. It just means they are dangerous. Don't ban guns, ban stupid people.

You can't ban stupid people though. Guns are the next best thing.

SalemGreen
May 5th, 2010, 07:53 AM
You can't ban stupid people though. Guns are the next best thing.

I assume you're joking, but will reply regardless as if it were actually serious.

You CAN ban stupid people, but most people don't have the fortitude to do it. I'd be all for it. Guns are the next best thing? Gun violence is relatively low. The vast majority of gun violence comes from black youth males and gangs. Neither of which has anything to do with Mr. Bob down the street. Banning guns won't effect the black youth males or the gangs. They will continue to get their guns. The only person who will be effected is Mr. Bob down the street. Tell me, does this, at all, sound like an even REMOTELY good idea?

Tyrantrum
May 5th, 2010, 07:56 AM
Just be lucky you guys don't live in Arizona like me... I hope...

People out here are allowed to own guns even without a license. But they have to make sure that you are able to see it (i believe). I've seen a couple people with guns out here, holding them in a gun holster.

Bluerang1
May 5th, 2010, 08:23 AM
No, no, no. It makes America the more scary to think of living in. Guns help at home. Not around town.

Timbjerr
May 5th, 2010, 09:07 AM
Guns are a tool created by humans out of their utter sloth. What happened to the good old days where if you wanted to kill someone, you'd do it with your own two hands or perhaps a blunt object? Killers and murderers nowadays are too lazy. >_>

Yeah...banning guns won't do much good. Murderers will still find a way to kill people even without their magical handheld killing devices. :P

Åzurε
May 5th, 2010, 09:30 AM
Banning guns bad. It's unfortunate, but people with bad intentions tend to use them. If they think the other person has a gun too, well, I at least would be infinitely more reluctant to go into their homes in the hopes of stealing or killing.

Esper
May 5th, 2010, 10:17 AM
Ban 'em. The really determined criminals will still get their hands on guns/kill people/commit crimes, but the moderately determined criminals will be deterred thus leading to fewer crimes/deaths.

Also, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzo9pOXa-s).

.Gamer
May 5th, 2010, 10:54 AM
I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed. I mean, as long as you aren't retarded or a felon you can own a gun. I have no problem with that. In places like New York where you can't own a gun, criminals still have them, so its clearly not effective. Luckily, in America, we have a constitution that prevents them from being taken away.

Kenpari
May 5th, 2010, 12:09 PM
I believe people should be able to own guns for self-defense or hunting/shooting practice. Though I'm toward the side of limiting what kind of guns they can have. Not everybody needs a heavy machine gun in their closet.

Sneeze
May 5th, 2010, 01:34 PM
If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. ~ Unknown

Guns should be legal for self defence, if a someone breaks into your house with a gun, and you are unarmed you don't stand a chance. Something being illegal doesn't mean it disappears from the face of the earth, it just makes it hard to obtain, anyone who wants a gun enough can easily get one nowadays. They should be legal so your average law abiding citizen can defend themselves should they need too.

Rich Boy Rob
May 5th, 2010, 02:06 PM
If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. ~ Unknown

Guns should be legal for self defence, if a someone breaks into your house with a gun, and you are unarmed you don't stand a chance. Something being illegal doesn't mean it disappears from the face of the earth, it just makes it hard to obtain, anyone who wants a gun enough can easily get one nowadays. They should be legal so your average law abiding citizen can defend themselves should they need too.

I know at least until late last year in the UK, attacking someone who broke into your house made you the felon. (Then there was a huge outcry when a man was jailed because he attacked the man who was holding his family at gunpoint with a cricket bat but that's another story).

As for guns in general, I think they should stay banned. Farmers, build an electric fence. Hunters, become farmers. Policeman, buy a tazer (I mean what good is a dead convict, that's basically the death penalty). The only people who should be allowed guns should be the military.

Åzurε
May 5th, 2010, 02:57 PM
I mean what good is a dead convict, that's basically the death penalty. The only people who should be allowed guns should be the military.

By that logic, the opposing side in a military conflict has done something worthy of death by being deployed there.

Cops don't (in general ) like to just shoot people. policemen fire guns in [I]self-defense, against criminals who don't want to be apprehended, and are willing to use a gun themselves to stay un-caught. There are disadvantages to using tasers. Among them is the range issue.

PokemonLeagueChamp
May 5th, 2010, 02:59 PM
Damit, when the zombie apocalypse comes, I gotta be able to fight for my life!

Seriously though, Americans have the right to bear arms because of the Revolutionary War days, so that should a government become too corrupt or a dictatorship is put in place, we can rise up and take them out. Of course, if the government is backed by the military, we'll get our rear ends kicked. But that, and self-defense against such things as murderers and robbers, as well as for hunting, are why gun-owning is legal.....so long as you get a license and your gun is registered.

Sneeze
May 5th, 2010, 03:24 PM
Electric fences don't really help against animals that can dig...

And yeah, a tazer is hardly gonna help against someone who's gone crazy with an assault rifle in a shopping centre. Police needs guns for some situations.

Cassino
May 5th, 2010, 03:46 PM
I think a stiletto not exceeding XYZ dimensions should be allowed to be kept on person in public for personal defence. Owning a firearm is not an especially viable form of self-defence as most such crimes are things like muggings which will be within an arm's reach; an average pistol can be effective up to I think 150 metres, highly redundant and possibly rather dangerous to bystanders.

As for things like war, sport, hunting, culling, removal of vermin, that's all fine and well for guns by me. I don't believe the average policeman however should be entrusted a firearm; better left to specialised firearms units.

Lucy Lu
May 5th, 2010, 09:18 PM
The only people who are allowed to have guns are police and soldiers. No one else. I am sorry I am scared of guns. I don't think I will ever touch one. There are too many people getting hurt/killed over not knowing how to hold a gun. And some many bystanders are getting shot with no reason. Because someone has a gun...they should be outlawed to normal citizens. Only the law enforcement should have them. But the Amendment does say you are allowed to "Bear Arms". Still though...ugh. I hate guns. ;_;

Okay, well on tv...seeing a gun won't bother me. Just seeing one real life...I have a problem.

Yusshin
May 5th, 2010, 10:49 PM
I'm with Lucy; the only people who should be legally allowed to have a gun should be the policemen and soldiers. Possession of a gun otherwise shoud be an indictable offence.

As for needing guns for defence against rabbits or w/e, there are always old-fashioned traps, anti-rodent sprays (basically, a smell that would scare them off thinking it's a predator), and the electric fence. I'm sure there are tons of other ways to scare off pesky rodents, too. Insects have pesticide; crows have scarecrows. There's gotta be something other than guns to scare off a pack of rodents.

Guns cause so much fear and violence. So many people are harmed, robbed, etc. by them. I despise guns.

FreakyLocz14
May 5th, 2010, 10:51 PM
Wow all the unconstitutional sentiment in this thread amazes me.

We can't just pick and choose what constitutional rights people should have and ignore parts of the Constitution we don't agree with. That sets a dangerous precedence.

Yusshin
May 5th, 2010, 11:02 PM
I think they should have initially put in the constitution that soldiers and policemen have the right to bear arms - not every crazy citizen that walks in the door, passes a test of age, and demands a gun.

I believe the constitution is errored for having not developped that thoroughly enough. Meh.

FreakyLocz14
May 5th, 2010, 11:10 PM
I think they should have initially put in the constitution that soldiers and policemen have the right to bear arms - not every crazy citizen that walks in the door, passes a test of age, and demands a gun.

I believe the constitution is errored for having not developped that thoroughly enough. Meh.

No, there was a reason why the Framers made it so average citizens can carry guns. The term well-regulated militia is interperted to mean that average citizens need to be armed in case the government grows opressive and they need to rise up and overthrow it. Without that they are vulnerable to opression.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized that people can own firearms and keep them in their home for protection against criminal invasions on their home and the people that reside within. In D.C. v. Heller the Court struck down a D.C. ordinance that said all firearms has to be disassembled and rendered inoperable to be in compliance with the law.

Guillermo
May 5th, 2010, 11:44 PM
I'm with Lucy; the only people who should be legally allowed to have a gun should be the policemen and soldiers. Possession of a gun otherwise shoud be an indictable offence.

As for needing guns for defence against rabbits or w/e, there are always old-fashioned traps, anti-rodent sprays (basically, a smell that would scare them off thinking it's a predator), and the electric fence. I'm sure there are tons of other ways to scare off pesky rodents, too. Insects have pesticide; crows have scarecrows. There's gotta be something other than guns to scare off a pack of rodents.

Guns cause so much fear and violence. So many people are harmed, robbed, etc. by them. I despise guns.
You've got to be kidding me, right? Gun violence is, as Salem said, as low as low can be. Even police officers don't need guns, 90% of the time. Really, the only time I know a police officer has needed a gun was when someone was coming at him with a knife, and even then the gun was not needed. The guy was never shot. There's more knife violence and fist violence than anything else. Are you going to ban people from having hands? They can kill, so there you go. There's more direct suicide than there is murders of other civilians involving guns.

As for your whole trap idea, a lot of animals are smart enough to maneuver around them. Scarecrows don't always work, and as I said earlier, the electric fence would not work. Having an electric fence around your farm is just stupid, really. Why would anyone do that? That has the potential to do more damage than a gun does.

About the whole robbing thing, too. It doesn't matter if you used a gun, a knife, your fists, pepper spray, or what. If someone jumped out and said, "Give me your wallet" and you didn't know some form of defense, then you would.

Sneeze
May 6th, 2010, 06:21 AM
As for needing guns for defence against rabbits or w/e, there are always old-fashioned traps, anti-rodent sprays (basically, a smell that would scare them off thinking it's a predator), and the electric fence. I'm sure there are tons of other ways to scare off pesky rodents, too. Insects have pesticide; crows have scarecrows. There's gotta be something other than guns to scare off a pack of rodents.

Guns cause so much fear and violence. So many people are harmed, robbed, etc. by them. I despise guns.

What about organic food that doesn't need to be coating in pesticides, and most, if not all traps aren't instantaneous and are inhumane, a trap is gonna be a pretty painful death, a well placed bullet isn't.

And the latter point is the very reason we need guns, so you can defend yourself against these people, as I said in a previous post, if guns are illegal people will still get them through the black market, and then there's always corrupt police officers to worry about.

RTHookers
May 6th, 2010, 06:27 AM
Yeah, more addicted people to counter strike killing their moms because "They camped in the toilet!".

Anyway, if a thief comes in, shoot him in the leg and he's incapacitated. Useful.

Rich Boy Rob
May 6th, 2010, 10:03 AM
Wow all the unconstitutional sentiment in this thread amazes me.

We can't just pick and choose what constitutional rights people should have and ignore parts of the Constitution we don't agree with. That sets a dangerous precedence.

You know there's more than one country in the world right? Only the US is held under the Constitution, not the planet.

Also on the Police issue, I agree they do need them in some cases, I was exaggerating a bit to get the point across. Although I don't really think they need a gun while just out on patrol, sure if they're busting a drug den or stopping an armed robbery they should be allowed one then, but they should never be used to kill the felon.

Yusshin
May 6th, 2010, 10:08 AM
You've got to be kidding me, right? Gun violence is, as Salem said, as low as low can be. Even police officers don't need guns, 90% of the time. Really, the only time I know a police officer has needed a gun was when someone was coming at him with a knife, and even then the gun was not needed. The guy was never shot. There's more knife violence and fist violence than anything else. Are you going to ban people from having hands? They can kill, so there you go. There's more direct suicide than there is murders of other civilians involving guns.

As for your whole trap idea, a lot of animals are smart enough to maneuver around them. Scarecrows don't always work, and as I said earlier, the electric fence would not work. Having an electric fence around your farm is just stupid, really. Why would anyone do that? That has the potential to do more damage than a gun does.

About the whole robbing thing, too. It doesn't matter if you used a gun, a knife, your fists, pepper spray, or what. If someone jumped out and said, "Give me your wallet" and you didn't know some form of defense, then you would.

All I ever hear about in Canada and the US is "drive-by shootings", "three dead from bullet wounds", and "gun violence leads to deaths and xxx$ damages."

I'm sure knives are popular, too, but we obviously can't get rid of those or we woudn't be able to use them in the kitchen :| The only use a gun has is to kill.

Humans are smart. We can figure out another way to get rid of rabbits.

Esper
May 6th, 2010, 11:00 AM
There's more knife violence and fist violence than anything else.
Breaking news! Three innocent bystanders were killed in Los Angeles today by stray fists during a drive by punching.

What's with all the paranoid people thinking they're going to be victims of armed burglaries? If you confront a robber with a gun they're going to be almost certain to use theirs and then you have bullets flying. I don't see how this is a safer way to keep your home safe than just letting a burglar have your wallet.

Cassino
May 6th, 2010, 02:06 PM
All I ever hear about in Canada and the US is "drive-by shootings", "three dead from bullet wounds", and "gun violence leads to deaths and xxx$ damages."
I would suppose that's all you hear about simply because that's what makes the news — to the broadcasters, the good things in life aren't news. You'll very rarely be told about the effects of charitable aid in the third world or the latest advancement in cancer research, usually just the war in somewhere, crime in somewhere else, or some political guff.

Humans are smart. We can figure out another way to get rid of rabbits.
Snares are about all that come to mind... and I think a lot of people have moral problems with those too. Not me though, so long as their positions are noted such that they don't become dangerous to other things like children playing in the woods. I've seen how inhumanely animals will kill other animals, the fact we're humans doing it with traps shouldn't be any more 'evil'.

Åzurε
May 6th, 2010, 05:44 PM
The only people who are allowed to have guns are police and soldiers. No one else. I am sorry I am scared of guns. I don't think I will ever touch one. There are too many people getting hurt/killed over not knowing how to hold a gun.

If people are getting hurt over not knowing how to hold a gun, wouldn't be a good idea to allow more people to learn how to use guns, rather than outlawing them?

There is little reason to fear a gun. They don't kill. People do. Guns do not go off without stimulus. Ever. If it weren't for courtesy and such, I'd stand in front of one comfortably if nobody was holding it. It's very rare for a gun to go off without the stimulus being human, and it's usually indirectly the fault of a person in cases such as falls and such. If people knew how to treat a gun, there would be fewer accidents like you said. Having a fear or ignorance of guns puts one at risk, more so than not.

In responsible hands a gun is a tool first and a weapon second. Excepting weapons issued by the military (and even then, somewhat. Target practice, anyone?), they are generally not made with the intention of killing other human beings.

FreakyLocz14
May 6th, 2010, 08:16 PM
You know there's more than one country in the world right? Only the US is held under the Constitution, not the planet.

Also on the Police issue, I agree they do need them in some cases, I was exaggerating a bit to get the point across. Although I don't really think they need a gun while just out on patrol, sure if they're busting a drug den or stopping an armed robbery they should be allowed one then, but they should never be used to kill the felon.

Statistic have shown that as gun ownership increases, crime goes down. People who use guns to commit crimes usually get them illegally, whether there was a way for them to get them legally or not, so the law doesn't stop them, it only stops the victim from being able to defend themselves.

Seriously, do you think gang bangers, robbers, etc. take the time to register their gun and get licensed before commiting their crimes? I think not.

EmeraldSerenade
May 6th, 2010, 08:20 PM
In self-defense: yes.
in general: no.

we don't need anyone blowing each others face's off because of a little "accident".
"ONOZ I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS LOADED D:!"

donavannj
May 6th, 2010, 08:26 PM
That can be dealt with by proper gun handling training.

Statistic have shown that as gun ownership increases, crime goes down. People who use guns to commit crimes usually get them illegally, whether there was a way for them to get them legally or not, so the law doesn't stop them, it only stops the victim from being able to defend themselves.

This paragraph is true in every sentence, with a slight altering needed to the last part of the last sentence, since there are plenty of things a victim can use if the main intent was just robbery, and they thief had a fake handgun. Openly carrying a gun also tends to scare thieves away, since they don't really wanna put their life on the line before they have the money or valuables they want.

FreakyLocz14
May 6th, 2010, 08:32 PM
That can be dealt with by proper gun handling training.



This paragraph is true in every sentence, with a slight altering needed to the last part of the last sentence, since there are plenty of things a victim can use if the main intent was just robbery, and they thief had a fake handgun. Openly carrying a gun also tends to scare thieves away, since they don't really wanna put their life on the line before they have the money or valuables they want.

If I was wandering around in New York looking vulnerable I'd be mugged in an instant. If I'm carrying my 9mm or .45 with me on my lovely stroll muggers wouldn't be so quick to mug me.

donavannj
May 6th, 2010, 08:40 PM
If I was wandering around in New York looking vulnerable I'd be mugged in an instant. If I'm carrying my 9mm or .45 with me on my lovely stroll muggers wouldn't be so quick to mug me.

Exactly my point with the last sentence.

FreakyLocz14
May 6th, 2010, 08:58 PM
Exactly my point with the last sentence.

People should be able to openly carry guns out in public. They would put them in their holster when entering a building out of courtesy. The only place they shouldn't have them are at schools and such sensitive places. Most schools have police officers or armed security guards on campus anyway which can respond quickly because they work exclusively on the school campus if something happens.

donavannj
May 6th, 2010, 09:02 PM
Of course. It probably won't happen, though, because of the stereotypes too many people have about guns.

Esper
May 6th, 2010, 09:15 PM
That can be dealt with by proper gun handling training.
Are you saying this should be a requirement for owning a gun? If you are then I agree with you. It's a good idea. Not as good as getting rid of guns entirely, but at least in America that's not going to happen for a long time so the fewer accidents the better.

Honestly though, I think we've proven we're not responsible enough to own guns. If guns weren't so easy to get a hold of then the boy I knew in junior high wouldn't have been able to kill himself so easily with his dad's gun. "Oh, but he would have found another way of doing it." Maybe, but when all you have to do is pull a trigger to take a life there's not much room for error. One little impulse, one little accident and someone is dead.

donavannj
May 6th, 2010, 09:23 PM
Are you saying this should be a requirement for owning a gun? If you are then I agree with you. It's a good idea. Not as good as getting rid of guns entirely, but at least in America that's not going to happen for a long time so the fewer accidents the better.

In some states, you have to go through this if you're under a certain age... but that's for hunting rifles, not handguns. I think you have to be 18 to own a handgun in Minnesota.

Esper
May 6th, 2010, 09:32 PM
In some states, you have to go through this if you're under a certain age... but that's for hunting rifles, not handguns. I think you have to be 18 to own a handgun in Minnesota.
I hope there's more to it than that.

I generally trust police officers to have guns (though I don't much like it) because I know they've had training in how to handle them. I'd be slightly more at ease if I knew that everyone who owned a gun had gone through the same thing regardless of their age. Kind of like getting your driver's license.

donavannj
May 6th, 2010, 09:37 PM
I hope there's more to it than that.

I generally trust police officers to have guns (though I don't much like it) because I know they've had training in how to handle them. I'd be slightly more at ease if I knew that everyone who owned a gun had gone through the same thing regardless of their age. Kind of like getting your driver's license.

Well, there's also the primary issue of getting it through people's heads that you don't store guns where children can reach them... and the fact that the majority of people who get guns have been around them their whole lives and know what's going on... and most gun clubs encourage (some even require) that you take their general gun safety courses to become a member.

Guillermo
May 7th, 2010, 12:49 AM
All I ever hear about in Canada and the US is "drive-by shootings", "three dead from bullet wounds", and "gun violence leads to deaths and xxx$ damages."

I'm sure knives are popular, too, but we obviously can't get rid of those or we woudn't be able to use them in the kitchen :| The only use a gun has is to kill.

Humans are smart. We can figure out another way to get rid of rabbits.
Because Canada and USA = The entire world. Plus, the police officers in America suck.

Breaking news! Three innocent bystanders were killed in Los Angeles today by stray fists during a drive by punching.

What's with all the paranoid people thinking they're going to be victims of armed burglaries? If you confront a robber with a gun they're going to be almost certain to use theirs and then you have bullets flying. I don't see how this is a safer way to keep your home safe than just letting a burglar have your wallet.
I don't understand if you're going against my point, or going with it.

Åzurε
May 7th, 2010, 08:33 AM
What's with all the paranoid people thinking they're going to be victims of armed burglaries? If you confront a robber with a gun they're going to be almost certain to use theirs and then you have bullets flying. I don't see how this is a safer way to keep your home safe than just letting a burglar have your wallet.

I don't understand if you're going against my point, or going with it.

Against it, I believe. Although, if it's not an armed burglary, but an unarmed burglary (aka, the usual kind), just look at them funny with a handgun on you and I bet you they'd get out. Even in an armed burglary, chances are you have two people standing with guns pointed at the other, and nobody is going to want to shoot first.

TziporaBatBinyamin
May 7th, 2010, 09:45 AM
Not in the uk. Our laws are to flipping soft!!!! Murders and paedofiles would be able to get guns and G-d knows who else.

It's easy for someone to say "I did it in selfdefence" when there is no one looking. Crime here is bad enough without actually being allowed to own a gun.

Esper
May 7th, 2010, 10:34 AM
I don't understand if you're going against my point, or going with it.
Against, because innocent bystanders get killed by guns, not fists and with guns being illegal you wouldn't see as many school shootings, suicides, accidents, etc.

FreakyLocz14
May 7th, 2010, 11:39 AM
Against, because innocent bystanders get killed by guns, not fists and with guns being illegal you wouldn't see as many school shootings, suicides, accidents, etc.

You think people who shoot up schools and do drive by get their guns legally?
You think they take the time to get licensed and register their gun before they get them? Of course not. So how does banning guns lower those crime rates?

Honest
May 7th, 2010, 01:31 PM
I think people should be able to use them only when someone is pointing a gun at them. This could limit problems with accidental deaths that guns often cause. Do you agree?

That makes perfect sense, but both of us know that that isn't simply how life works. There's gonna be that one person that doesn't give a damn about the rules.


I think that people should be able to own guns, but only under special reasons, and they have to go through documents and such, and the selling of them should be governed by the government. Sounds a lot like how they actually do it, if I'm right.

Captain Hobo.
May 7th, 2010, 02:35 PM
Yes they should and they should be able to shoot someone if they attack them.

Esper
May 7th, 2010, 02:36 PM
You think people who shoot up schools and do drive by get their guns legally?
You think they take the time to get licensed and register their gun before they get them? Of course not. So how does banning guns lower those crime rates?
All guns start out legitimate. They're bought at gun shows or whatnot, then get sold or passed around or stolen. Some of the guns used at Columbine were bought legally before they were sold to the shooters. If guns couldn't be produced, imported, and sold here (or anywhere) there would be a much smaller pool from which criminals could get guns. So unless there are illegal gun factories that cater to criminals I think the fewer legal guns allowed the fewer there will be for criminals to get their hands on.

Sneeze
May 7th, 2010, 02:43 PM
All guns start out legitimate. They're bought at gun shows or whatnot, then get sold or passed around or stolen. Some of the guns used at Columbine were bought legally before they were sold to the shooters. If guns couldn't be produced, imported, and sold here (or anywhere) there would be a much smaller pool from which criminals could get guns. So unless there are illegal gun factories that cater to criminals I think the fewer legal guns allowed the fewer there will be for criminals to get their hands on.

Not strictly true, you can purchase gun replicas for decorative purposes, these can then be "modified" into to real guns, same can be done with air rifles and the likes as well I believe. Some guns roll straight off the black market.

Rich Boy Rob
May 7th, 2010, 02:49 PM
If I was wandering around in New York looking vulnerable I'd be mugged in an instant. If I'm carrying my 9mm or .45 with me on my lovely stroll muggers wouldn't be so quick to mug me.
That as may be, but if I was walking around London looking looking vulnerable there would be a small chance of me being mugged. If I'm carrying my 9mm or .45 with me on my lovely stroll I would be arrested in an instant.


Seriously, do you think gang bangers, robbers, etc. take the time to register their gun and get licensed before commiting their crimes? I think not.

@___@

gang bangers? I hope you have a different definition to that as me.

PiroMunkie
May 7th, 2010, 06:48 PM
I'll just say that I feel I was very fortunate that my father happened to have one of his pistols on him when a homeless, crazy man came at him and I with a machete out on the private property my family owns of the Sandia (Albuquerque, NM) mountains as my mother and 85-year-old great-grandmother were asleep in a house less than a quarter-mile away. He and I would be dead had he not had the right to carry and use his firearm.

I understand and respect people with opposing viewpoints on this issue considering I once was, ironically, on their side.

HaloSonic
May 7th, 2010, 08:04 PM
this is a tricky one. there are certain people who are responsible enough to use a gun only for self defense, hunting, sport, and such. but there are those who will abuse it and can misuse it. there should be rigorous testing before you are allowed to own one.

hiphiphippo
May 7th, 2010, 08:15 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/155gzuu.jpg
sorry, i just had to include this (seeing that no one else had before me.. o_o)

people should just use throwing stars instead.
they have the potential to inflict some serious damage
http://i40.tinypic.com/33wvb74.png

all joking aside...

What's with all the paranoid people thinking they're going to be victims of armed burglaries? If you confront a robber with a gun they're going to be almost certain to use theirs and then you have bullets flying. I don't see how this is a safer way to keep your home safe than just letting a burglar have your wallet.

i agree with this
even so, there are the "exceptions" to the rule: people who just happen to get caught in the wrong time at the wrong place D:

ideally, only responsible people would be allowed to have guns, but that'd be hard to regulate

Fox♠
May 8th, 2010, 02:06 AM
Bolt Action Rifles and selected shotguns should be allowed for hunting and avaliable to anyone with a hunting liscence and over 18. Semi automatics should only be allowed to people who can prove they can be trusted with them and should only be allowed to be used at regulated shooting ranges.

Guillermo
May 8th, 2010, 02:13 AM
Against, because innocent bystanders get killed by guns, not fists and with guns being illegal you wouldn't see as many school shootings, suicides, accidents, etc.
Funny thing, that, because innocent bystanders also get killed with knives. And yeah, without guns, you wouldn't see as many school shootings, because you can't really shoot someone without a gun. And lol@you thinking making guns illegal will reduce suicides. If someone wants to die, they'll find a way to kill themselves. Accidents, much the same. People can fall over on the street and die, people can cut themselves with a knife, so it's not just guns that participate in everything you mentioned.

And hey, without guns we'd also see a lot less meat and vegetables! :D

FreakyLocz14
May 8th, 2010, 11:33 AM
All guns start out legitimate. They're bought at gun shows or whatnot, then get sold or passed around or stolen. Some of the guns used at Columbine were bought legally before they were sold to the shooters. If guns couldn't be produced, imported, and sold here (or anywhere) there would be a much smaller pool from which criminals could get guns. So unless there are illegal gun factories that cater to criminals I think the fewer legal guns allowed the fewer there will be for criminals to get their hands on.

Like people who get illegal drugs, people will find a way to get guns. Heroin starts off as legitimate? No. Outlawing guns will mean only outlaws will have them.

That as may be, but if I was walking around London looking looking vulnerable there would be a small chance of me being mugged. If I'm carrying my 9mm or .45 with me on my lovely stroll I would be arrested in an instant.



@___@

gang bangers? I hope you have a different definition to that as me.

1) That's because people don't have rights in the UK.

2) Ganger bangers: Members of a street gang xD

King Goodra
May 8th, 2010, 12:14 PM
Criminals are criminals for a reason. If a criminal wants a gun, they'll find a way to get one. Banning guns would probably affect people who use it for defense (protecting their home and children, for example) since usually they're the ones who would follow the law compared to people who would use it for illegal purposes.

Yamikarasu
May 8th, 2010, 02:03 PM
I think bullets should be taxed more heavily, because when a person owns a gun for self defense, there is absolutely no need for them to have more than just a few. I am not a person who would ever feel paranoid enough to own a gun, but I'm not going to stop anybody. I think it's stupid to associate owning a gun with some sort of patriotism. Guns are meant to kill people, and I don't think anyone should forget that.