Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.



Closed Thread
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old March 25th, 2013 (02:35 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Because, unlike guns, the materials he used have non-killing related uses.

What are guns used for? To forcefully take the life of another sentient being.
What is fetalizer used for? To improve crop yields.
What is racing fuel used for? It's a higher quality fuel source used for race cars.
What are box trucks used for? Hauling cargo.

Anyway,

__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #27    
Old March 25th, 2013 (02:45 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I still don't get your point. He didn't use a gun to kill anybody and killed more people than all the school shootings combined. (I think the school shootings are conspiracies anyways, and if it was he still killed more with that bomb) I used his weapon of mass destruction to prove a point meaning you don't need a gun to build up a huge body count. That gun that says "nothing" is an M16 and they are use it in the military and I think you're just bringing this stuff up to just start another argument even tho you somewhat agree with me which is why you make no sense to me.

If you ban guns, might of well ban all those tools posted above ban people from buying water, gasoline and matches/lighters, ban rocks, and handcuff everybody so they can't use they're fists. Anything can kill someone, anything and that's what that picture is stating meaning guns aren't the issue. As I said before, you don't need a gun to kill someone.
__________________

  #28    
Old March 25th, 2013 (03:33 PM). Edited March 25th, 2013 by Mr. X.
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Anything can kill, yes.

But the point is what it's intended purpose is.

Fertilizers intended purpose is to increase crop yields. Gas's intended purpose is to power cars. Trucks intended purpose is to transport things. Guns intended purpose is to kill.

Can you point out a case where a gun was used that didn't result in the injury or death of a living being? Because I can point out tons of cases where fertilizer, gas, and trucks were used that didn't result in the injury or death of a living being.

But still - I see you point. Guns don't kill people - It's the bullets that do.

So, really, we don't need gun control. We need bullet control.

If guns don't kill, then why do we have laws preventing convicted felons, one group of which is murders, from buying and owning them? If you truly believe that guns don't kill people, then you need to say it loud and proud - Felons should be able to own guns too. Guns don't kill, right? So why are these people not allowed to own them? Guns pose no threat so whats the harm in letting them have guns? Them using the guns to kill people? Guns don't kill people, so this would never happen... right?

My agreement with you is that I support guns - Thats as far as it goes. But, while I support guns, I believe that we shouldn't make it easy for that who seek to cause harm to obtain weapons, and that some weapons have no legitimate civilian use. As for military 'style' weapons such as the AR-15's, I believe that if you want to use military style weapons then you should join the military.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #29    
Old March 25th, 2013 (03:49 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I see where you're coming from but saying a guns intended purpose to kill isn't entirely true. Some people have guns because they enjoy shootings at the shooting range. They have the guns for hobbies, but also have it for self defense in case that happens. That doesn't mean it's intended to kill, they bought it for the shooting range because they enjoy it and I see nothing wrong with that.

I don't believe we need to control bullets either the bullet's kinda useless unless the person pulls the trigger if you ask me. All my guns are loaded at all times but have the safety on them and they are not cocked back for more safety. I'm aware of guns and the safety of them and know what to do to not cause a tragedy with them. If I was a psychopath I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have a gun, Missouri required me to take background and personality tests and test my psychological backgrounds and they said I'm fully capable of owning a gun. If I had a child I would invest in a safe before the baby's even born, as I said, I know believe in gun safety but I don't believe the should be controlled by any means. Saying they kill people is ignorant and idiotic imo.

As for the fertilizer, gasoline, and box trucks. Yes I'm aware of the recreational use of them but that's what he used to make the bomb with. My point was if you ban guns might of well ban everything else because the out of the ordinary chemicals and tools can kill people.
__________________

  #30    
Old March 25th, 2013 (04:24 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
When guns were first made, they were made because the inventors were looking for more efficient ways to kill people. This is a guess though, as the earliest depictions of guns and its predecssor, the fire lance, show the weapons being used against people.

If guns don't kill people, then what does? If a person is shot with a gun and dies, what caused them to die? The damage caused by the gun. Same if they died after being stabbed by a knife - The damage caused by the knife. Or being *Insert action here* with a *insert object here* - Its the damaged caused by the *insert object here* that causes a person to die.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #31    
Old March 25th, 2013 (04:39 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Still, the person killed not the weapon. A person can kill with they're bear hands, they teach you combat like that in the military especially when you go Navy Seal and Special Forces route, they teach you scary ****. They don't need guns or a knife. All they need is they're hands and they will kill within seconds. That doesn't mean the hands are killers, the person killed them. I see where you're coming from with the impact from the bullet going through the flesh and the knife slicing an artery but the killer killed regardless. The gun wouldn't of killed if he didn't pull the trigger, the knife wouldn't of killed if he stabbed the body. That's my argument on it.
__________________

  #32    
Old March 25th, 2013 (05:24 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
While it's the person who makes the choice to kill, it's the weapon he uses that determines how effective of a killer he will be. One gunshot can kill you, one knife stab can kill you - One punch or kick, 99% of the time, won't. To this - A gun can kill you from various ranges - Including over a mile away. Knives, fists, and feet would have to be - literially - right in front of you in order to kill you. Additionally, speed - It's a lot quicker to kill a person, or multiple persons, with a gun then it is to kill the same amount with a knife or your fists.

Also, you said it yourself - Training. For hand to hand, the person needs to be taught how to counter the opponents attacks, how to attack, what specific area's are the best to hit. And don't forget, the physical conditioning needed. Guns? Pretty much point and shoot.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #33    
Old March 25th, 2013 (05:43 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Point and shoot to an extent, if they were never trained to shoot a gun and aim down the sights properly then the gun may not be any use. I myself know how to aim a gun and wont hesitate to kill someone if I'm in life danger, but that doesn't make me a killer. I will only kill if the situation forces me too because it's the only way out. That's why I carry a gun everywhere I go. In Missouri I didn't take one everywhere I went because it wasn't necessary, this is Chicago not candy land where everyone's friend. They kill for territory, they kill because you walked down they're street, they kill because you're wearing certain colors, they kill because you throw up certain signs even like a wave, they kill for initiations, they kill for cars, they kill for money, they kill over drugs, they kill over anything. The streets ain't safe like people think they are. That's why I have one, if you lived around that you'd wish you had a gun too. Until you live in an area like that people won't understand. I've seen **** with my own two eyes that you can't even imagine and I think thugs are damaged in the brain.
__________________

  #34    
Old March 25th, 2013 (06:52 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by ShinyUmbreon189:
Until you live in an area like that people won't understand. I've seen **** with my own two eyes that you can't even imagine and I think thugs are damaged in the brain.
They are most definitely broken people, but I don't think they're technically insane. I'd think them crazy or nuts or not all there too, but in a court of law they'd more likely be found criminally responsible than insane. It is subtle
__________________
  #35    
Old March 25th, 2013 (07:27 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
The reason I think they're damaged is because they think it's okay to rape a women and then murder her after they all raped her. Kill little 13 year olds for throwin up the peace sign this actually happened in Chicago. Peace sign is similar to the Vice Lords gang sign. There's 3 and the peace sign is one. Shooting innocent people that walk down they're street. Tho I believe some of them are good people if they get out of that way of life and are completely normal but think it's right because they live around it and see it 24/7. But lot's of them, won't change and those are the damaged ones.
__________________

  #36    
Old March 25th, 2013 (07:38 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by ShinyUmbreon189:
The reason I think they're damaged is because they think it's okay to rape a women and then murder her after they all raped her. Kill little 13 year olds for throwin up the peace sign this actually happened in Chicago. Peace sign is similar to the Vice Lords gang sign. There's 3 and the peace sign is one. Shooting innocent people that walk down they're street. Tho I believe some of them are good people if they get out of that way of life and are completely normal but think it's right because they live around it and see it 24/7. But lot's of them, won't change and those are the damaged ones.
I understand all that. I think they're damaged too, to use your phrase. They're sick, twisted people.

But that's still different than legally insane. And its those who are truly insane that laws and restrictions can prevent such weapons from falling into the hands us and harming others or themselves. They may commit a crime, and should most definitely be punished for it, but they aren't hardened criminals like the gangs you seem to be fixated on
__________________
  #37    
Old March 25th, 2013 (07:48 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Oh I know psychopaths shouldn't have guns. I was required to take many tests in Missouri before I even got my permit and they didn't see any reason why I couldn't have one. I owned a .9mm before I got my permit because I used to live in Oklahoma where my grandpa always took me shooting and he taught me how to use a gun. He's completely stable to have a gun and been shooting for 50+ years. Some people are criminally insane and some are mentally insane. Neither should have a gun imo but the criminally insane will have one regardless, they don't care about the law and wont hesitate to shoot a police officer when they roll down they're street. Mentally insane have twisted thoughts telling them a gun may be useful which is why they shouldn't have one.
__________________

  #38    
Old March 25th, 2013 (10:47 PM).
Echidna's Avatar
Echidna
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vaniville Town
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Oh my God, this topic again. Ok then, yet another very long and exhausting post. Just to make my stance clear, what I am about to say is my opinion and I do not in any way shape or form consider it fact, even if I may word it as such.

Let's begin by saying that there is no obvious call on this, because if there was there would have been quite a definitive decision by now. Instead, everything related to this topic is a matter of opinion.

On one side of this very long barrel(so poor a choice of words I can't even...) is the fact that guns are dangerous in the hands of civilians. Very dangerous. A person with anger issues can snap and kill someone in a second and we must always remember that guns facilitate the act of murder so much that even someone as young as 10 years-old can kill given the chance. It's no longer a matter of strength rather a matter of opportunity.

More to this is how false the argument of "murderers will always find a way to kill" is. Let's face the facts here, half if not most of all murders that take place in this world would not have been committed if it was not for the utter simplicity and ease of applying those 3 to 6 pounds of pressure on the trigger. And if you don't want to think too hard, here's a quick example. What of the many murders that happen in the whim of a moment because of the accessibility of guns? What of those deaths that take place because the predator simply had to reach behind their back and pull out this small yet effective piece of equipment? Are you to tell me that most of those murders would still have happened if the killer/shooter couldn't just grab something the size of their palm that made killing take no more than a fraction of a second? Because if you truly think so, sir, then I tell you to reread your facts.

As you may have noticed, all of the above is merely support to the argument of gun control. Let's move on to the other side of this debate.

Another thing we need to consider is the fact that gun sails have never been nor will ever be exclusively legal. Gun control or no gun control, there is no doubt that if someone wants to get a gun, they will always be able to. Back street and ally exchanges are happening all the time, hence the major war against gun trafficking.

In turn, this begs the question: If criminals will always be able to get their hands on a gun, doesn't it stand to reason that potential victims should be able to legally obtain one? And possibly even be able to obtain a carry permit? I would say yes, but again it's a matter of opinion, or maybe in this case it's a matter of reason? I don't know, that's up to you to decide.

Moreover, say criminals will not be able to get their hands on a gun. What does this stand to prove? Nothing. If a criminal wants to use a knife to kill, then a victim should be able to defend themselves with something that gives them a significant advantage. Yes, a gun. Think about the lives that a good Samaritan armed with a gun could save if the criminal was, in a sense, less armed.

So there stands my point. The matter of gun control is very sensitive and there is no true ultimate answer. So this of all problems can only be solved by utilizing the very intuitive human mind. Black and white won't work, so I say explore some gray. Make obtaining a gun significantly harder but not impossible. This in my opinion, will save lives.

On a side note, for those of you who are thinking that guns are not only used by civilians but by military as well, I ask you to rethink the topic of this discussion, gun control. Gun control has nothing to do with the military. In fact, it's quite obvious that the use of guns for military purposes has gone so far that it has reached the point of no return. So what we should be asking ourselves is whether or not guns should be banned from the hands of civilians, not whether they should have ever existed and/or been used for anything, ever.
__________________






  #39    
Old March 25th, 2013 (11:52 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
We're also forgetting the reason why the 2nd amendment exists - It exists because before we gained independence from Britian, the people feared that the new government would quickly become corrupted. People wanted to own guns for their personal use, during those years for hunting, but also in the case that they had to rise up and overthrow the new government.

What a lot of people forget is how effective - correction, ineffective - these guns were. The movie's say the line as "Ready, Aim, Fire" when in reality, because of how inaccurate the guns were, is was more "Ready, Level, Fire". It's also why they had to march, in a line, until they were practically face to face - The guns had crap accuracy. While testing under controled conditions had them being accurate at 50 to 75 yards, their actual hit rate during battle was crap at around 5%. They marched together until they were face to face to mitigate the poor accuracy - but this wasn't to make the gun hit its target, it was so that it would actually hit something. And that something was rarely, if ever, it's intended target - It was either the guy behind the target, or someone a person or two to the left/right. A lot of the time though, the shot still didn't hit anything but air or dirt.

The founders didn't make these amendments thinking of future technology - They made them to account for the technology of the time. Because of the inaccuracy and how long it took to reload, a single person with a gun of that time wouldn't have been a threat.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #40    
Old March 26th, 2013 (09:24 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by ShinyUmbreon189:
Please enlighten me on how guns kill people? I really wanna know your reasoning. News flash, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If guns didn't exist there are ways to kill a man even with your bare hands so does that mean hands kill people as well? My point is, if a killer wants to kill they will kill simple as that. A killer don't need a gun to kill someone and leave them in the obituary, a gun may not even be necessary it's just a faster route to kill someone that's all.

If guns kill people then I can grab my Glock 19 that's in my glove box right now in my car, set it in my passenger seat and walk away and it will grow 2 little feet, open the door that's locked, walk outside and kill someone on the sidewalk? Keep dreaming, a gun is not capable of killing someone unless the use pulls the trigger. Guns even got safety locks to prevent accidental deaths from happening. If you have children then buy a safe to lock it up so they can't get to it. There is no reasoning to even saying a gun kills people because that makes you sound very ignorant.

Yes people kill animals with guns but some people kill animals to eat, let me guess your a vegetarian right? It's not like humans are running out and killing every animal they see. Camping, a bear comes and try's to attack you, you would wish you had a gun on you because it may be the only thing that saves your life. Gun's are in no way bad but they aren't necessarily good in the wrong hands. Some people especially criminals use them for all the wrong reasons, and in the hands of the wrong person the gun can become very dangerous. But it's not the gun, it's the person and his mentally ill and delusional mindset.

Guns for protection, I have no issue at all. As I said before, I have 3 guns a Glock 19, .22 pistol, and a .9mm pistol. Not once have I aimed it at a human, threatened or even thought of aiming it at a human. I'm completely mentally stable to have a gun, I wont go on a rampage with a gun, I have it solely for protection at all. But I guess I'm a bad person because I own guns correct and guns kill people correct?. Well, guess I'm a killer then.
Guns kill people because without guns you just have somebody yelling "BANG!" and unless there's someone with a very weak heart that's not going to hurt them. Sorry for the snide remark, but you know people don't believe that guns have a life of their own and you know what people mean when they say that guns kill, but you're pretending like you don't and that's a bit disrespectful.

Guns are dangerous because they make killing easier. Yes, people can kill with other means, but it's a flawed argument to say that because one object that is capable of killing (like a knife) that any other object capable of killing (like a gun) is equally dangerous and/or likely to kill someone. It ignores a lot of factors, like the ease with which a person intent on killing and carry out their intent (a.k.a. it's easier to pull a trigger at a distance than to struggle in close quarters), and that not all people have the same level of intent to harm others. What I mean by that last point is that you can have someone who is completely heartless and intent on causing as much death and possible and for them it won't really matter what tools they use (a gun, a knife, whatever), but you can also have the person who doesn't intend to kill and who just gets really angry at someone or something and in the moment resorts to the gun they happen to have around. Basically, not all killers are the same, nor are all criminals.

It's too simple to say that all criminals will break laws whenever they feel like it. Many of us here on this website have broken laws, whether jaywalking or downloading music or smoking pot or maybe even shoplifting or something else, but even those of us who jaywalk would probably not do that if, say, a police car were nearby. We don't single-mindedly break that law regardless of circumstances. It's the same for most everyone, even killers. They don't all decide that they're going to kill someone and do whatever it takes to kill that person, gun or no gun. Lots are, as I said, spur of the moment things where their anger or some other factor overrides their better judgement and they kill someone. Take guns out the equation and they'll have a harder time killing in that immediate instant when they get the urge to kill. Enough time to calm down or have second thoughts or even for some third party to intervene even if they really do have a great urge to kill someone that doesn't subside so quickly.

That's why guns tend to hurt people by accident, because you can have this moment where you feel threatened, feel angry, and because you've got a gun you resort to it and shoot first. Without the gun you might think: "This is dangerous. I should get out of here." Or whatever other thought you have, you've got to take a moment. In that moment you might realize that threat is just your neighbor or a family member who you might have shot at.

And I'm just gonna stop there for now.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
  #41    
Old March 27th, 2013 (11:37 AM). Edited March 27th, 2013 by Kanzler.
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Perhaps U.S. civilians should be allowed to keep guns for self-defense, if only because the market for firearms is so large to begin with. But there is a study that shows that a gun is used very rarely in defense in response to an offender committing a violent crime (assault, rape, robbery etc.), only less than 1% of the time. So even if all guns theoretically disappeared from the hands of law-abiding citizens, only a very small minority of crime instances would be affected. The argument that guns help in self-defense, judging from the observations in this study, is irrelevant compared to whatever benefits would occur from banning legal access to guns.

The study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/pdf/amjph00463-0112.pdf

Also, the one of the main ideas of the article concerning Chicago was never addressed - and it's a really good one. Laws don't mean anything without enforcement. So even if Chicago has the toughest laws, it's highly misleading to say that tough laws have nothing to do with violent crime. I'm sure China has really tough laws against violent crimes, and you know what? Offenders actually get executed.

And the whole argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is overused and abused. By that logic bombs don't kill people, but people kill people - and bombs are still pretty darn banned. Like Scarf said: guns facilitate violence, much like bystanders facilitate bullying. Yes, in strict logic, we wouldn't say guns kill people, nor bystanders bully people. But they enable the act to happen, and by removing the enablers, we remove an incentive for that act to happen. It's irresponsible to use that phrase to kill discussion because ideas should be represented clearly, and arguing from the logical "correctness" of a statement is irrelevant compared to the issue at hand and I wouldn't stop at "a bit disrespectful", but go as far as to call it an obstruction of logic.

I feel that human behaviour can be guided, if the right incentives are used. If the death penalty was executed swiftly and harshly for violent crime, crime rates /will/ go down. Career criminals are rational actors in the sense that if they have a realistic chance of being offed by the state, they're not going to get paid. And I don't think criminals do what they do because of the excitement. Let's say there was a law that penalizes the possession of a gun outside of military/law enforcement context with death. It feels more likely to me that criminals would all rather rot (safely) in the ghetto together, instead of killing each other and getting killed by the justice system at the same time. I laugh at the thought of drug dealers attempting to do drive-by-and-strangle-each-others, or knife duel like they do in counter strike if their guns were taken away from them. It will be much harder to kill when the tool that makes it so easy is taken away. The school shootings will occur every now and then, but you could never defend against those anyways. A mass shooting is scary, but gun violence occurs every day and not only on the front pages of a newspaper.

It's clear that guns have no place in a civil society, and ideally, they would disappear from the hands of civilians in a snap. The problem is one of practicality as you can't simply make the theory of "take the guns off our streets" into real-life action. Although, and I'm citing the study above, implementing a gun ban wouldn't really affect the victim's ability to defend against gun crime, if the victim's gun is only used 1% of the time. Gun crime just happens, and most of the time you can't stop it as it's happening, with a gun or not, whether you like it or not. It's a disheartening conclusion, but it just might be something we have to suck up and accept as a reality.
__________________
#363 Spheal
Supporter Collab January 2015
mod of nothing
paired to Axeliira
  #42    
Old March 27th, 2013 (08:26 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
So Scarf, are you against guns or not? I understand where you're coming from but nothing convinced me that a gun kills someone even with your 5 or so paragraphs about the topic.

Yes it guns vanished out of thin air then the crime would go down drastically but that will never happen. Criminal or not, someone will have a gun. The govt. can confiscate all the guns they want by going house to house, building to building and still wont get them all. Even if they banned guns meaning you can't buy them at gun stores or anything then it would still happen. Not just the black market, don't forget people own mom and pop shops. Let's say the owner knows someone in the black market, it's just a shot in the dark and they supply him with guns, or even they get access to the black market and they buy guns. They open up in the back a gun store, it's an underground area cops can't get to it. It's the same with cartels and medical marijuana, sell marijuana in the front sell everything else in the back, only special customers get it. They're friend or long time customer buys it and they tell they're friends, and those friends tell those friends and before you know it you have guns again. Just like that, the way it was before.

You don't need to know people in the black market to get guns, you just gotta know people in general, they're friend knows a gang member that gang member knows where to get guns by the dozens they take them back they're get money off those people and those people sell them in stores. I'ts not rocket science if you really think about it. Stricter gun laws or even slapping a ban on guns in general wouldn't solve a thing. In the 20's they banned Tommy Guns thinking people wouldn't have them anymore and the crime would go down, guess what? Nothing happened, Russia had crates full shipped by boat to America just like that. You can't control guns and we will always have them regardless criminal or not. Just because you're breaking a law you don't agree with means your a criminal. Smoking weed isn't a criminal, drinking underage isn't a criminal, owning a gun when you should have one isn't a criminal.

What we need to do is reach the youth, go through the hood and gather up youngsters and get them out of that way of life, in the cyfe they know how to cut 8 balls by the time they're 13, rolling with a gang when they're 13, selling dope when they're 13 raping, murdering, robbing houses, etc. They think it's okay because it's all they ever seen in they're life, I feel sorry for them because they're forced to sell this much cocaine, this much heroin, this much crack, his much marijuana in this amount of time or they get shot. It's a cold hearted world in the ghetto and they're not the only ones capable of damage, yes they are the main reason for crime in the first place but the rest is usually delusional minded people and psychopaths. A normal person with a gun and knowing gun safety wont kill anyone as a rule but someone that's in a gang will, they kill 6 year olds, old people, they're own members if they try to get out or don't sell enough product, women, someone that walked down they're street, police officers, etc. Then you have the mentally insane people that something goes wrong in they're life they get a thought in they're twisted mine telling them to kill people and it will be okay. That doesn't make guns bad, it's just the way people are. I too wish we could guns out the hand of the criminally and mentally insane people but we can't. Even with the strictest gun laws, it's impossible. It's our culture it's not the UK, China, Africa, Japan, The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, or Australia, etc., were completely different people. It's our way of life.
  #43    
Old March 27th, 2013 (10:23 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I think smoking weed, and drinking underage is criminal in the eyes of the law, and will be dutifully punished if law enforcement had the resources and actually cared.

And we all know how to get kids off the street: more funding for education, youth job training, community programs linking parents with the schools and law enforcement so everybody's on the same page, benefits for single parents - basically stuff that we're told we can't pay for.

I think Obama's on the right track for some of his intended reforms. Here in Canada, we do have a 10 round cap on magazine capacity, as well as prohibition on assault weapons. Handguns are a restricted weapon that can only be used in certain situations (like on shooting ranges, or if it is determined that you have some special need for protection that the police cannot provide - and you'll have to go through the federal police for that). The only non-restricted firearms are rifles, which makes sense. If you want a restricted firearm, you need that registered. We had a registry for long guns that we got rid of, but I think it was so irrelevant nobody cared to begin with.

Based on stuff I've read in the news, the polls in America say that people don't seem to mind too much about gun control, just only whenever a massacre shows up. It's been favouring less controls recently, and whatever pro-gun-control movement that arises basically floats with media coverage. But being in a democracy, if most people don't care most of the time, maybe it's just not a big deal? I mean gun control laws, not violent crime etc. because of course that's always on the agenda.

But on the other hand, think of the Mexicans! Their law enforcement is already as overstretched as it is, having to deal with the drug cartels and corruption, but most gun crime there is done with handguns. And a lot (2.2%) of legal gun sales in America end up getting smuggled into Mexico every year. So for the sake of the Mexicans, implement a ban on handguns so they don't have to deal with American weapons XD

On a more serious note, we are living in a world affected by globalization, and crime is a component of that. Even if one argues that Americans, as a sovereign country, should be concerned with American policy and have the right to do whatever they want, the problem of drugs, arms, and crime is intertwined between nations and thus requires an international effort. I don't know if the public will buy that argument though, because honestly - voters only care about their short term interests. Anyways, I feel that it's still valid even if it doesn't get enough exposure. Other countries are affected by how gun control works in the States, making them stakeholders. So it's only fair if they have a say too.
__________________
#363 Spheal
Supporter Collab January 2015
mod of nothing
paired to Axeliira
  #44    
Old March 27th, 2013 (10:43 PM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Yes I agree fully with you on another topic here I'm gonna jump around a little to keep this thread afloat.

People up here say "ban semi automatic weapons, there will be less massacres". But what they don't realize is all guns but fully auto's AK's or any military issued weapon for that matter are classified as *semi auto*. Semi auto means one shot burst and that's exactly what a pistol is even tho they may have 16 or so round clips in them depending on the pistol. Therefore saying "ban all guns". An assault rifle is just a fancy name they gave it, a shotgun is an assault rifle, a hunting rifle is an assault rifle, and I believe we have all the right in the world to own those guns.

Give someone a revolver with quick reload that's 12 shots in 30 or so seconds, there's a video for it and that right there is 12 body's within 30 seconds. A glock were' not getting in model # but typically have 16 clips in them the accuracy of those things are spot on for the most part so that's 16 body's in 20 seconds or so. Banning rifles won't stop the massacres, banning guns won't stop the massacres, only thing that will stop massacres is to beef up the security at schools and search every student there or have metal detectors like they have in most schools in Aurora and Chicago up here. Metal detectors will catch the guns, take in a bag full of guns they search in when you go through the detectors right there stops the massacre. You can't stop massacres on the streets. A gang drive by is a gang drive by and you can't fight they're power. No matter the law on guns here it wont stop anything, there's always something that's gonna happen regardless.
__________________

  #45    
Old March 27th, 2013 (10:58 PM). Edited March 27th, 2013 by Mr. X.
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Guns don't fall into just the auto and semi-auto catagories.

Your forgetting about pump action, bolt action, lever action single action and double action weapons.

Also, your definition of semiauto is wrong. The definition is "A weapon that preforms all actions necessary for repeated firing." Essentially, if you can pull the trigger and it will fire, cycle out the spent casing, cycle in a new round, and be ready to fire again all at the same time, without any further action on the users part, then it is a semi-auto.

And your also wrong about a shotgun being a assault rifle. A shotgun functions completely diffrient then a rifle. You can see it on the ammo - Shotguns fire shells, rifles fire bullets. Their is more to it then this, but long story short shotguns are not rifles.

If you want to make a point, at least make sure you understand the technology first.

Edit
http://homestudy.ihea.com/aboutfirearms/10diffrifleshotg.htm

Also, Hunting Rifles are not Assault Rifles. Mainly because none of them are automatic - In fact the vast majority aren't even semi automatic. The most common types of hunting rifles are actually bolt action.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
  #46    
Old March 28th, 2013 (09:30 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by ShinyUmbreon189:
So Scarf, are you against guns or not? I understand where you're coming from but nothing convinced me that a gun kills someone even with your 5 or so paragraphs about the topic.
Not even the fact that guns can go off by accident? I know there was something in the news in the last year or so about a kid who brought a gun to school and it went off while in their bag and injured a few people. I mean, yes, you can teach people to be responsible with anything, but accidents happen. (And even if being responsible prevented 100% of accidents, can we ensure everyone will be responsible enough?) I would think the reasonable thing we should do is look at how dangerous something is and let that decide how readily we want to make it available to people.

So, for instance, look at explosives. We don't let just anyone use them. Only trained people can use them and only under specific conditions like in places where no one could accidentally get too close (demolition sites, bomb ranges, etc.). That's a sensible way of doing things because explosives are very dangerous - either from a proper-handling sense (screwing up would be very bad) or a malicious-use sense (bad people could do lots of bad things with them).

Then there are guns. I think they're fairly similar to explosives in how dangerous they are. You have to handle them properly (or you could hurt and kill yourself or others) and if bad people have them they can (and will) hurt and kill people.

Obviously there are differences, and explosives are probably more dangerous in many circumstances, but since we agree that it's sensible to restrict who can acquire explosives it makes sense that we should do the same for guns since they're both dangerous for the same reasons. Dangerous stuff should be regulated: The more dangerous it is, the more it should be regulated. You might still think that guns aren't dangerous in and of themselves and it's all on the person holding one, but I would argue that widespread improper use of guns should be assumed and taken into account. It's been demonstrated that lots of guns will be used badly. It doesn't matter that a responsible person can handle one responsibly. Others will not. We can't pretend that because some will be good, everyone will be good and justify gun ownership based on that argument. Admittedly, one could turn this argument on something like knives. Some will use them badly. So we shouldn't allow knives, then? Ah, but knives aren't as deadly as guns, aren't as likely to kill by accident. They're not as dangerous. Which is my main point: how dangerous something is should determine how much we regulate it. Guns are very dangerous.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
  #47    
Old March 28th, 2013 (09:57 AM).
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
A gun won't go off with proper gun safety, you can't compare moronic people to smarter people when it comes to guns. As I said, guns have safety locks for a reason. The safety lock don't just out of the blue turn off, it doesn't work that way. Plus, if a clip isn't in the gun which is what he should of done then it's literally impossible to go off. But as you said, guns kill people because they're oh so dangerous, nobody should have gun it means this, the statistics say this, blah, blah, blah, gtfo. Let me add this, let's ban guns from citizens let the criminals have guns and see how that works out. They're killers scarf not us. But liberals will never get it.
__________________

  #48    
Old March 28th, 2013 (10:08 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by ShinyUmbreon189:
A gun won't go off with proper gun safety, you can't compare moronic people to smarter people when it comes to guns. As I said, guns have safety locks for a reason. The safety lock don't just out of the blue turn off, it doesn't work that way. Plus, if a clip isn't in the gun which is what he should of done then it's literally impossible to go off. But as you said, guns kill people let me add this. Let's ban guns from citizens let the criminals have guns and see how that works out. They're killers scarf not us.
But morons have guns, too. Unless we want to stop morons from having guns we have to assume that a portion of all gun owners are morons.

Gun ownership restrictions would only be one part of the solution anyway. You'd limit how many people could own, what kinds, how much ammunition they can buy, or go further and prevent the sale, manufacture, or ownership of certain types of guns and ammunition completely. You'd also raise the penalties for breaking these laws. The goal would be to reduce, over time, the number of guns in circulation by rounding up guns whenever and wherever they surface for whatever reason unless the person who has one can show they've done absolutely everything by the book and has a very compelling reason to own their gun.

And, really, when has owning a gun ever stopped a criminal except when that gun is in the hands of the police? Yeah, I'm sure there are token instances, but by and large it doesn't help at all.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
  #49    
Old March 28th, 2013 (10:16 AM). Edited March 28th, 2013 by ShinyUmbreon189.
ShinyUmbreon189's Avatar
ShinyUmbreon189
Never go full retard
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Little dot on the map
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Gun restriction or not, it wont solve anything. If someone wants something they will get it. There's many many ways to get a gun and there would be many many ways if they were restricted. You can't stop gun control it's impossible and guns aren't just gonna vanish like that. You're also wrong about upping the crime involved with it, people will still take the risk. People still drink and drive don't they? I'd say that's equivalent to the danger of a gun, texting and driving, I'd say a step down from a gun. You can't stop someone from breaking the law, they will do it no matter what. If they were illegalized here and the way America works is they would get a thrill of breaking the law so more people would have guns, it's the way America is. Even with countless tests to get a gun, they will still get them you can't stop them and quit playin this game because it's not gonna change. Don't you realize 95% or so of gun related deaths are from gangs anyways with people that were unarmed. That's something you should think about.
__________________

  #50    
Old March 28th, 2013 (10:23 AM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Would you support the repeal of laws preventing convicted felons from being able to purchase firearms?
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Closed Thread
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 05:27 PM.