Guns

[Thursday]

Are you brain dead? I said on numerous occasions that criminals have the guns. Did I not say this? Criminals as in gangs... So it's hard for them to get guns? Yea, them getting a gun is like taking candy from a baby. Gangs in America fight over guns to get the guns. If they were banned, it would still happen. Guns would get smuggled here by Russia, Saudia Arabia, China, Africa, Mexico, etc anyways. You can't control guns. The only way you can control them is if you go to every single house and search every square millimeter of the perimeter and still wouldn't confiscate them all which is why your argument makes no sense. Make them harder to get, what happens? The same **** that always happens. Russia fills crates up with guns and smuggles them here to sell, the black market is a business dude, it's not fantasy **** that I just made up to back my statement up. It's very real.

Okay, first of all, I'm going to say this so you get it clearly:

I know criminal have guns!

I know this and you don't have to keep saying it. Just because they have guns does not mean every argument for gun control is wrong and you seem to take it personally. Calm down.

I'm also going to say that you keep bringing up Chicago and gangs. If this thread was suppose to be a 'Guns in Chicago and Gangs' thread then I'm sorry for even jumping into it without know because I thought it was a very nonspecific gun control thread.


Lastly, I bolded that part because I want to say this: If people seriously want something, not even the law will stop them. Having stricter gun laws will not affect them at all. I get this and want to say it before you go on and insult me again while repeating it like a mantra. People who want stricter gun laws (at least some of us) know it will not affect them unless they get caught. The gun laws are suppose to try to deter others who may want to cause harm later on.

 

[Ivysaur]

No name-calling, please. Stay civil.

And take into account that the US, by constitutional default, have some of the laxest gun control laws in the world, so the States with "strict controls" have incredibly lax controls in comparison with any other civilized country you can name. So comparing laws between US states is like comparing someone who eat 50 burgers a day with someone who only eats 25 and saying their eating habits are much healthier. Just dropping that out.

This is America, not Great Britain

What in the name of Mew is that supposed to mean.

 

[Mr. X]

If gun laws don't effect criminals, then does this mean we should overturn the laws that prohibit felons from buying and owning weapons?

Afterall - These laws aren't going to affect them, since they will get guns no matter what the laws say, so what purpose does the law serve?

 

[Esper]

I'm against guns. They kill people. I'm against killing people. (I'm also against killing animals but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.)

Guns are much more likely to kill an innocent person than anyone else. It's very rare for a person to fight off a mugger or burglar or kidnapper or rapist or whatever with a gun. It's still fairly rare for people to accidentally shoot themselves or a family member or friend, but still much more likely than the other scenario.

Regarding Went's burger analogy, I still think it's useful to compare one state to another inasmuch as the "weakest link" idea goes. The weakest link being the state with the laxest laws since you can live in a place with strict laws, but you only have to go to the next state over to get a gun that you couldn't get where you live. (We really need uniform gun laws here.)

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I'm against guns. They kill people. I'm against killing people. (I'm also against killing animals but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.)

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 are much more likely to kill an innocent person than anyone else. It's very rare for a person to fight off a mugger or burglar or kidnapper or rapist or whatever with a gun. It's still fairly rare for people to accidentally shoot themselves or a family member or friend, but still much more likely than the other scenario.

Your point behind this? Guns have safety locks for a reason, they don't just unlock on they're own. When I show family and friends my pistols I LOCK IT and take the clip out. Making it IMPOSSIBLE to shoot. A gun can't shoot when it's locked and can't shoot without a clip in it, and damn sure don't shoot on it's own.

I'm sorry, but if I saw my mom or sister getting raped I'd kill the bastard simple as that. If someone broke into my house to rob me, I'd kill the bastard because chances are if they see me they're killin me because they too have guns, and if someone tried to kidnap me I'd kill them. All of those situations are valid reasons to kill someone, and it's protecting yourself and other around me. I'm not taking a knife to a gunfight.

Regarding Went's burger analogy, I still think it's useful to compare one state to another inasmuch as the "weakest link" idea goes. The weakest link being the state with the laxest laws since you can live in a place with strict laws, but you only have to go to the next state over to get a gun that you couldn't get where you live. (We really need uniform gun laws here.)

Yes Illinois's gun laws are very very strict, you can have one in your home but it has to be unloaded which I disagree with. If you bet caught with the gun outside your home it's a min of 10 years in prison which I disagree with. Politicians can have guns up here but we can't? Little hypocritical if you ask me. I grew up in Missouri and lived there most of my life and plan on moving back. When I moved to Illinois I already had all my guns in the first place, it wasn't my idea to move up here. So technically I didn't get them illegally because I already had them from the beginning. But yes, you can live in a state with strict gun laws and go to a state to get one that's lax but that doesn't make you a criminal. There's just some laws that I don't agree with, I carry a gun on me almost everywhere that I go because you never know when that time will come in Chicago, not saying it will but you never know. I'd rather be prepared than not be prepared.

There's shootings in gas stations, Walmart, pet stores, everywhere up here.

Here's to you guys that think guns kill people analogy.

 

[Mr. X]

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,

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

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.

 

[Mr. X]

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.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

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.

 

[Mr. X]

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.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

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.

 

[Mr. X]

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.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

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.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

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

 

[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.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

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

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

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.

 

[Echidna]

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.

 

[Mr. X]

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.

 

[Esper]

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.