Guns

[Ivysaur]

About 35-40% of the population is crime affiliated groups

I very much would like to hear your sources because you are implying that there are +120 million gang members in the US. That's more than the turnout in the last elections, for instance. Those figures are ridiculous. Unless you consider your local tennis club as a gang.

That's UK this is America they're both entirely different countries.

Around 200 years ago they weren't. So if two countries with nothing in common like Norway and the Uk can solve their problems with guns, I don't see why a country with as much in common with the UK as the US can't.

gun laws will help America when in reality it wont do a thing.

Any tests, studies, investigations supporting the idea, or just your absolute belief on that idea?

 

[Mr. X]

All your saying it that gun laws are pointless because it won't stop them from getting guns - Because they can't get them legally, they will resort to illegal means.

What I'm asking is how will making it legal for them to buy and own guns reduce gun crime? How will making it even easier for them to obtain weapons cause the crime rate to go down?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

It wont, the law is useless because it wouldn't solve the crime issue either. You can't stop criminals from breaking the law and next time I see this question come up I'm just gonna ignore it because obviously you're ignoring everything I said.

 

[Mr. X]

Me, ignoring everything?

Hardly - Asking tough questions, yes. Forcing you to think about your beliefs, yes. Making you think for more then half a second, yes.

If the law is pointless, why do we have it? If it serves no purpose, then why not repeal it? Should we make it even easier then it already is for criminals to obtain weapons?

Can you at least give a straight answer to this? Will making it easier for criminals to get guns cause a reduction in gun crime?

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

You're trying to piss me off is what you're doing and trying to change my mind to agree with you're backwards theories. As I said either way if they were banned or not, restricted to criminals or not they will get the guns either way. Once again, it don't make it any easier. They don't follow the law and the law not being there would be the same as it being there. Oklahoma if you commit a crime you lose your permit but there's still lots of people with guns even tho they lost they're permit. You can't stop an individual from following the law or listening to what a man in a suit has to tell you or someone behind the counter/desk tells you they will do it no matter what. If guns were banned and I had no gun I wouldn't follow it. They wouldn't follow it because they don't agree with it, if I was a criminal and couldn't get one I would get one. I don't know why you can't accept my answer instead of shoving it down my ****ing throat like your's is the only goddamn right answer when it's not. There is no right or wrong answer in this debate, it's a debate not ****ing math problems.

Edit: I explained my reasoning a good 30 times and you're still wanting my reasoning? Just accept it because were getting nowhere with you're closed mind.

 

[Dakotah]

You're trying to piss me off is what you're doing and trying to change my mind to agree with you're backwards theories.

... and right now I hear the sound of a cat hissing and growling in the background.

ShinyUmbreon, that is the purpose of debate, to attempt to get the other party to change their position. If that isn't something you are interested in participating in, then why get involved in the debate in the first place?

Also, is calling another person's position "backwards theories" really appropriate? You may not agree with another person's position, but by levelling such a demeaning attack, you really minimize your own argument.

The only reason this has become personal to you is because you've allowed it to be. Step back from both sides' talking points, and look at the issue from an unbiased perspective. You might be surprised by what you find.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I'll still find my theory is right. You can't stop someone from doing something and saying you can makes you sound very intelligent. Laws are meant to be broken, there's not one law in the book that someone hasn't broke. It's a matter of getting caught, it's like drug dealing. Do it so long until you sell to the wrong person and you go away but when they get out they continue even tho it's illegal. People will take the risk with it being restricted from them and there's nothing you can do to stop them other than killing them which isn't right. Just accept that they're gonna break the law and forget about it. It's not you breaking the law so why care what someone does?

 

[Dakotah]

I'll still find my theory is right. You can't stop someone from doing something and saying you can makes you sound very intelligent.

I believe you are both right and wrong on this point. You are wrong in the sense that if you institute a law which prohibits a certain harmful behaviour or activity, then a decent, law-abiding citizen will of course avoid going against the law because that person has no interest in being found in violation of the law.

On the other hand you are also right in that an individual who does not value society's laws will generally rebel against society. I say generally only because this is not always the case. For instance, let's look at these two laws. One says that a person will not cause the death of another. The second law says that no one shall sexually abuse a minor. A person who may not have an issue with breaking the first law, but he or she may be disgusted by the thought of violating the second law. Such a person may in fact violate the first law because another person was found to have violated the second law. In that instance, there's quite a few people who would think the person who killed the child rapist got exactly what he or she deserved.

Laws are meant to be broken, there's not one law in the book that someone hasn't broke.

No, laws are meant to be obeyed. The reason people disobey them is because they're selfish, greedy, or disturbed. Only anarchists think laws should be broken. In fact, they don't even believe laws should be made.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

So I'm selfish, greedy, and disturbed because I smoke weed, because I drank underage (now legal), go over the speed limit, and drive around with a gun in my glove box in Chicago? Just because someone breaks the law doesn't make them any of the above, they're completely normal people like me and you. Now raping, beating children, animal abuse, killing, identity theft, etc yea that's different those are major crimes and all but one are disturbing. Identity theft is just selfish and greedy. Owning a gun illegally isn't greedy, disturbing, or selfish. They believe they should have the right to own a gun criminal or not I don't necessarily agree a criminal should have a gun either but that doesn't make them any of the above.

I don't agree with most of the laws but there are some laws that I do agree with and follow for the most part I would say I'm a law-abiding citizen, so what I smoke weed? It's my body I shall do what I damn well please and no govt. official is gonna tell me otherwise. I'm aware of the consequences but that doesn't stop me. Its' the same with people owning guns illegally, they're completely aware of the law but see the situation the exact way I see it. Instead it's not doing anything to they're body, that doesn't make them disturbing tho they're completely normal if they wanna own a gun illegally or not but I don't agree they should but it's they're choice. That's my stance on the laws with criminals with guns, you can't stop them so why try?

 

[Ivysaur]

Because there is a logical argument to stop untrained, unchecked, uncontrolled people from owning guns as they could cause the death of other people. There is much less risk of dying because of gun violence in a society where guns are not common than in one where they are a commonplace thing to carry around, next to your driver's licence and your phone.

Even if criminals get hold on guns, that means that the huge percentage of people who would not carry guns if that meant breaking the law (which is by far the majority) won't have the risk of killing someone else by accident or going on a rampage or shooting before asking in a false threat kind of situation. And we already have police to fight criminals anyway.

Not to mention that by making the process of acquiring a gun harder, we are already blocking some people from becoming criminals in the first place as they will fail or think twice or quit before buying the gun illegaly- while, if you can just buy it in the store next door, you won't have any time to reconsider it.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

A police force and the govt. can't stop every criminal so what's you point? If you ask me the govt. is hypocritical about almost everything they slap down. Yea you can't have guns in this state, what do they do? Break they're own law, tell others how to live they're life like it matters to them when they turn around and do the same thing. Police officers aren't as hypocritical but some officers think that since they have a blue uniform and a badge they think they can do whatever they want. There's a smaller percentage yes but it still happens. While the govt. thinks that since they have the power they're entitled to anything they want and can do whatever they want when they want. That's why I have 0 respect for the govt.

By criminal what do you mean tho? Gang affiliated ex convict criminal or criminal that sold dope and got out today criminal? Threatening criminals with guns should be stopped but we can't control it, there's too many. You have to have proof they're a criminal until then they will continue to do what they want when they want. A criminal that sold dope or something isn't dangerous with a gun or at least not as dangerous with a gun. Now don't bring up drugs with guns and the chemical enbalancement in you're brain because I'm completely aware of it. Responsible drug users like marijuana and know the effects and have been doing them for a long time know what's going on around them and them with a gun isn't a major issue. Marijuana doesn't do as much as the propaganda makes you think I smoke it so I know what the effects are. Now a drug user or dealer that does cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, etc. Yes they're mind is pacing and they could turn into a serial killer but still can't stop it.

 

[Echidna]

Because there is a logical argument to stop untrained, unchecked, uncontrolled people from owning guns as they could cause the death of other people. There is much less risk of dying because of gun violence in a society where guns are not common than in one where they are a commonplace thing to carry around, next to your driver's licence and your phone.

Even if criminals get hold on guns, that means that the huge percentage of people who would not carry guns if that meant breaking the law (which is by far the majority) won't have the risk of killing someone else by accident or going on a rampage or shooting before asking in a false threat kind of situation. And we already have police to fight criminals anyway.

Not to mention that by making the process of acquiring a gun harder, we are already blocking some people from becoming criminals in the first place as they will fail or think twice or quit before buying the gun illegaly- while, if you can just buy it in the store next door, you won't have any time to reconsider it.

This is definitely all true. But you do also have to consider the fact that even if a criminal can't obtain a gun, they will still be able to inflict serious injury. There are dozens of cases of muggings and beatings that are stopped because the victim carries a concealed gun. Of course that is definitely out-weighed by the vast decrease in murder cases, but it doesn't mean that said cases can be neglected.

My personal opinion is this, with or without guns, criminals will always be there and to be able to carry a gun can be a potential victim's best defense. The right to obtain a concealed carry permit, in my opinion at least, would best not be completely revoked rather made significantly harder.

 

[Ivysaur]

While the govt. thinks that since they have the power they're entitled to anything they want and can do whatever they want when they want. That's why I have 0 respect for the govt.

Government is created by people like you, elected by people like you, and their powers are controlled and keep in check by people like you. The Government is not an evil, supranatural force of nature that existed before makind appeared in the world and lives in a higher plane of existence, but rather is an entity created by men to control some issues those men decided to give them control about.

If you don't like your Government or how they work, you can vote them out. Or run yourself with your own reformist manifesto. That's the magic of democracy.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

The govt. want's power that's it. They have 0 care for our well being and our situation. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they turned to tyranny. Lie after lie, after lie, after, after lie. That's all they're about. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they also ban our guns and lie about a reason why they're doing so.

 

[Dakotah]

So I'm selfish, greedy, and disturbed because I smoke weed, because I drank underage (now legal), go over the speed limit, and drive around with a gun in my glove box in Chicago?

Definitely selfish. It's the typical "I will do whatever I want and no one can tell me otherwise" argument. Going over the speed limit can cause grave injuries or even death to yourself and others if you just happen to lose control of your car. Speed limits are there to protect you and other drivers on the road. Speeding is reckless, irresponsible behaviour. Likewise you smoking weed can adversely affect the health of others around you who might be exposed to the smoke, such as people who have poorly functioning lungs. Again, it's irresponsible behaviour, and completely selfish. And then there's your other point, that you drive around with a gun in your glove box, one of the FIRST places thieves look when breaking into a car. I'm sure if your gun were to be stolen from your car, you wouldn't care less if that gun later on was used to slaughter a family. After all, it wasn't your responsibility. It was stolen. But then, if you didn't have the gun in the first place, there might be a family that's still alive. But since you don't like laws, what do you care, right?

I don't agree with most of the laws but there are some laws that I do agree with and follow for the most part I would say I'm a law-abiding citizen, so what I smoke weed? It's my body I shall do what I damn well please and no govt. official is gonna tell me otherwise. I'm aware of the consequences but that doesn't stop me.

And what about the other people you might be adversely affecting because of you smoking weed. They didn't exactly have a say in the matter did they? But as you say, since you can do whatever you damn well please, why should you care about others?

So yeah, I call you selfish, because it's what you've just admitted to being.

The govt. want's power that's it. They have 0 care for our well being and our situation. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they turned to tyranny. Lie after lie, after lie, after, after lie. That's all they're about. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they also ban our guns and lie about a reason why they're doing so.

This is not an anti-government thread. It's a thread about guns. If you want to rant about the corruptness of government, I suggest you start a new thread.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I'll still find my theory is right. You can't stop someone from doing something and saying you can makes you sound very intelligent.

Not immediately, no. It isn't a magic wand. It takes many years. That's how social engineering works. Like seat belt legislation

 

[Mr. X]

I'm intrested in how far his belief of "It's pointless to make laws against stuff since it will happen anyway" goes.

Would you support making, say, rape legal? How about pedophila? Or a entire list of crimes? Afterall - These are still going to happen. Might as well get rid of the useless laws.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

I was born and raised around guns. I've had shooting lessons since I was 6. I own two handguns, and an old BB gun. I can dismantle, clean, and shoot most RPGs and semi automatic rifles thanks to the Marine Corps. My entire family is full of hunters.

Do I agree with stricter gun laws? Yes. At least proper training should be had to buy guns. No one should be allowed to purchase a fire arm without a certificate of training to prove they know how to use them.

Now do I use the ones I own? No. I'm freaking scared of guns. The only one in my family that will not use a gun. My Rifle was a prize won in cub scouts when I hit five bulls eyes, one handgun was given to me when my grandfather passed away, and the other was a gift I received from my uncle upon entering the Marine Corps.

Whether a criminal can attain a firearm or not is not something that should influence whether or not they should be legal. If in possession while illegal, that just means they receive stricter punishment.

All that really needs to be done is proper education for using firearms.

 

[Sir Codin]

No one needs a gun, except those who are insecure with certain physical attributes and the cowards.

From what I understand, it requires a good amount of strength to handle guns properly, especially stronger guns. There are other reasons people own firearms besides protection. Hunting and sport (like archery) are two of the most common, alongside decoration, or because they're just plain interested in the mechanics behind them.

Gun ownership and total confidence in one's own physical attributes are not mutually exclusive, and I think it's kind of erroneous (not to mention rude) to claim owning a gun makes someone a coward.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I don't know Mr. X, you tell me, you seem to be the genius in this debate. Perhaps those crimes are major crimes and you go away for a long ass time. You don't just get away with raping or murdering someone dude, it don't work that way. An ex convict with a gun or suspicion of a gun is the same as someone with a bag of mary jane, wont hit news where murdering someone will and raping someone most likely will. They're completely different crimes and irrelevant to eachother. I know it still don't stop them but more people have a gun "illegally" than murders and rapes. Just like more people smoke weed illegally than murder and rapes.

But to answer you're spam question. Maybe if they up the punishment for owning a gun illegally then it may help a little bit. It's a hit and miss, not everyone will follow it, the law prohibiting them is too lax they go away for 10 years or so, maybe up it 30 years. It wont make a drastic change but it would solve a couple of them. But unless you can crack down on EVERYTHING illegal that goes on here and how they get it then there's no way to stop it until they get caught. They take a risk with no reward they get caught or they don't get caught. Owning a gun illegally has no reward just a risk you don't get anything special in return. But as I said no matter the law a majority of them wont follow it and I don't know why you're question keeps popping up like this. It's not just gonna magically stop them like were in a fantasy world or something where you're "imagination" comes to life, it's reality not a delusion and this topic were on right now you're making it seem we live in a fantasy world.