Gun Control

[TheMason]

Personally, I do not think that the US needs simply MORE gun control laws. The issue has become highly politicizied and thus does not necessarily reflect reality any more.

IE-The focus on Assault rifles. These guns only account for 1% of the crim committed in this country, but most of the media attention is focused on them.

Furthermore most of the people commenting on what can and cannot be considered a sporting arm, do not understand what they are talking about. For example the calibure that the AK-47 and M-16 fire are perfectly legal and effective as a hunting round, and is perfectly legal as long as the rifle has a 5 round mag.

[JoS]

I dont think whether its a real sporting gun would be the biggest issue. Do you think people should really be allowed to walk around with an M-16? And remember a Tek-( was used in Columbine. Do you really need an assault rifle or automatic weapon to hunt? Anti-personal mines will work for home defense, but should we be allowed to have them too? What about the Bank of America robbery, they had assault weapons.

[Peter90688]

I think everyone should have ne gun they want, including rocket launchers, rail guns, ect. But, i will be the only ones with the bullets, because frankly, i wouldnt trust ne mother fucker wit a gun.

[TheMason]

You brought up Columbine, but the problem there was not guns or Manson. Society (ie-School, other kids, parents) failed the Trenchcoat mafia. In this country it is considered ok to prey upon the weak, those who are disadvantaged because of poverty or their home environment. I have seen this personally, when my wife and I took in her High School aged brother who was in the planning stages of a columbine rampage. He had to leave school because at home he was sexually, physically and emotionally abused. At school the other kids took no pity on him, and like a bunch of newborn chickens they began pecking at the weakest amongst them.

In many ways we have become too materialistic and conformist in our society without checking it with any real sense of virtue. Unfortunately we have not learned the true lesson of Columbine, that it is not material influences (ie-guns, music, movies, etc.) but the types of homes and communities todays kids are growing up in.

[TheMason]

At 1/1/04 01:18 PM, Peter90688 wrote: I think everyone should have ne gun they want, including rocket launchers, rail guns, ect. But, i will be the only ones with the bullets, because frankly, i wouldnt trust ne mother fucker wit a gun.

Drama: 5
Curses: 5
Abuse of the English language: 10 (This is not a good thing)
Ideas expressed: 0.

[bumcheekcity]

People should not have guns. If a person has a gun they can kill someone with ease. We need to take guns away from EVERYONE, and hit the Black Market at the top, not hurt the poeple at the bottom.

[Proteas]

At 1/1/04 04:02 PM, ____bumcheekcity____ wrote: People should not have guns. If a person has a gun they can kill someone with ease. We need to take guns away from EVERYONE, and hit the Black Market at the top, not hurt the poeple at the bottom.

Really now? Grow up. If you want to kill someone badly enough, does it matter if you have a gun?
Following your logic, as well as my comment, we could easily outlaw a bunch of things deemed as "weapons." I.E: Cars, basball bats, a flight of stars, kitchen knives

What we NEED is to teach the next generation (as well as this one) to better deal with their emotions, instead of grabbing any kind of a weapon ands taking a human knife.

[Proteas]

Excuse me, I meant to say "human life."

[TheMason]

I don't know how it is in England, but here in the States most of the country is rural without any effective police presence. As a result there is in this country a significant amount of the population that does not have police protection. In terms of physical violence (rape, assault, etc.) many have to fend for themselves without assistance.

Interestingly, these areas have per capita a lower rate of violent crime than urban areas that have a police force. One difference is attitude, firearms are seen as tools and are respected more in these areas than in the urban centers and the suburbs.

[FUNKbrs]

At 1/1/04 06:37 PM, TheMason wrote: Interestingly, these areas have per capita a lower rate of violent crime than urban areas that have a police force. One difference is attitude, firearms are seen as tools and are respected more in these areas than in the urban centers and the suburbs.

*gasp*

LOGIC! WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM!?

*huddles in fear knowing someone has found his only weakness*

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/1/04 04:27 PM, Proteas wrote: Really now? Grow up. If you want to kill someone badly enough, does it matter if you have a gun?

Not whatsoever, but if you DO have a gun, and you're REALLY angry, then you can shoot someone. If you DONT have a gun, then you can punch them, which is painful, but probably wont kill them.

Following your logic, as well as my comment, we could easily outlaw a bunch of things deemed as "weapons." I.E: Cars, basball bats, a flight of stars, kitchen knives

I don't think people should be carrying those around with them at all. They ARE weapons.

What we NEED is to teach the next generation (as well as this one) to better deal with their emotions, instead of grabbing any kind of a weapon ands taking a human knife.

How do you teach people to deal with their emotions? Don't they learn that already as they go through life? It's a thing you continue learning until you die.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/1/04 04:27 PM, Proteas wrote: Really now? Grow up. If you want to kill someone badly enough, does it matter if you have a gun?

Not at all. But if you do have a gun, then you CAN kill someone with ease, say if you were angry and there as a gun in the house, I'd feel a hell of a lot less safe than if there was no guns anywhere near me.

Following your logic, as well as my comment, we could easily outlaw a bunch of things deemed as "weapons." I.E: Cars, basball bats, a flight of stars, kitchen knives

All those things ARE weapons, in the wrong hands. And you shuldn't be carrying them in public at all.

What we NEED is to teach the next generation (as well as this one) to better deal with their emotions, instead of grabbing any kind of a weapon ands taking a human knife.

How would we do that?

[JoS]

At 1/1/04 03:52 PM, TheMason wrote: In many ways we have become too materialistic and conformist in our society without checking it with any real sense of virtue. Unfortunately we have not learned the true lesson of Columbine, that it is not material influences (ie-guns, music, movies, etc.) but the types of homes and communities todays kids are growing up in.

I never claimed that guns, manson or The Matrix made them shoot up the school. I work with youth for a living, I know that it is mroe caused by home life and the youth class tructure they deal with. However, would more or less people have died at Columbine if they did not have access to automatic weapons and a shitload of ammo? If all they could have gotten was even you standard hunting rifle or shot gun they would have inflicted far less casualties, since they would a have to reload far more often and b could not fire off as many rounds at a time. The point of gun control isnt to stop the crime, although in some cases it will, but to bring down the death/violence involved. Instead of 12 people dying maybe only 8 would have died. Now that may not seem like a huge deal, but it would have been for the families of those four people that didnt die.

[blueloa13]

I think we should outlaw handguns. It drops the crime rate a great deal (ex. Japan whos population is bigger than ours and more condensed). And it still gives protection from whatever and you can still hunt. This also allows for the common man to rise up against the government given the right time.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/2/04 04:32 AM, blueloa13 wrote: This also allows for the common man to rise up against the government given the right time.

What is it with rising up against the government? You know how to solve this problem don't you? Vote!

[Mr-fidel]

At 1/2/04 04:32 AM, blueloa13 wrote: I think we should outlaw handguns. It drops the crime rate a great deal (ex. Japan whos population is bigger than ours and more condensed). And it still gives protection from whatever and you can still hunt. This also allows for the common man to rise up against the government given the right time.

Everyone is going about this completly wrong. If you ban handguns more crime will pop up actually. look at the amarican 1920s during the prohibition era. common men became criminals overnight just because they could not break a drinking habit. as a result prisons filled with drunks and moonshiners, people who would normally be considered relativly law abiding. Because of the ban on alcohol, it actually seemed more appealing. greedy mobsters popped up all over to exploite this, making sure to crush all opposition along the way, by any means. the same would surely happen if handgus are banned. their small and good for defence, which makes them popular among commoners and criminals alike. plus lots of people own them already and I think its unlikely that they will just hand them over, they are rather expensive.

[blueloa13]

At 1/2/04 05:50 AM, ____bumcheekcity____ wrote:

At 1/2/04 04:32 AM, blueloa13 wrote: This also allows for the common man to rise up against the government given the right time.

What is it with rising up against the government? You know how to solve this problem don't you? Vote!

I do, and im an active member of the libertarian party. But i'm still concious(sp) of the fact that one day a rebel uprising will take place.

[blueloa13]

At 1/2/04 05:54 AM, Mr_fidel wrote:

Everyone is going about this completly wrong. If you ban handguns more crime will pop up actually. look at the amarican 1920s during the prohibition era. common men became criminals overnight just because they could not break a drinking habit. as a result prisons filled with drunks and moonshiners, people who would normally be considered relativly law abiding. Because of the ban on alcohol, it actually seemed more appealing. greedy mobsters popped up all over to exploite this, making sure to crush all opposition along the way, by any means. the same would surely happen if handgus are banned. their small and good for defence, which makes them popular among commoners and criminals alike. plus lots of people own them already and I think its unlikely that they will just hand them over, they are rather expensive.

Actually if you check a couple of sources, countries that have banned handguns and kept hunting guns (some have even banned those)legal have had their gun violence decrease dramatically. Although violence with knives and such have gone up, the death tole has still decreased supstantially. Drinking is totally different than owning a gun. you would still have shotguns and hunting rifles to protect yourself.

Why dont we take other countries ideals sometimes? We always think that we can do it the best and frankly we dont. Japan has 36 (give or take a few) deaths on average a year, with only handguns restricted. We have about 11,000 deaths a year due to gun homocide.

[Gibberish]

"If only kids would play more video games about sharing!"
- Marge Simpson

[SabreNoose]

i think that we should make bullets more expensive so people would be like: "id blow your head off, if i could afford it. im goona go and sell my ca and remortgage, then im gonna come back and blow your fucking head off."

[CapitalistSocialist]

At 1/2/04 06:32 AM, SabreNoose wrote: i think that we should make bullets more expensive so people would be like: "id blow your head off, if i could afford it. im goona go and sell my ca and remortgage, then im gonna come back and blow your fucking head off."

Didn't some comedian say that. Chris Rock anyone?

[Gibberish]

There was a clip of it in Bowling ofr Columbine.

[Proteas]

Thank you Mason, for your reasoning. Newgrounds could use more people like you (and thank you for your service to our country).
I live out away from my town, about 3 or 4 miles from the nearest police station. Much less, I'm outside of city limits, so I don't know that they would respond anyway. But I do feel better knowing that if something happens, like a home invasion, I can stop it.

As far as what we can do to teach the next generation how to better deal with thier emotions, how about this? We teach them to logically think through a situation first.
Using a weapon and taking a life is not always the best answer to a problem, talking through a situation is usually a better idea, but most people don't think to do that.

Even if you increase prices for buying ammunition, it's still cheaper to go out and buy the materials to reload a shell yourself. You would just wind up increasing the number of "do it yourself" shooters.

Besides, have you seen how much a box of rifle bullets cost as it is? $15 a box for about 30 shots, if that! And shotgun shells are usually higher.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if you ban firearms in America or not. It's the same situation with illicit drugs; if people want them badly enough, they will get them.
I just don't think to many law abiding Americans willingly handing over their firearms because a couple who don't even live in this country say we should.

In short, to quote Charlton Heston, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers!"

[Gibberish]

Logically speaking, the number of gun deaths is proportional to the number of guns avaliable.

It's natural for people to get mad, and become illogical. So, having less guns means less shooting. Duh.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/2/04 09:50 AM, Proteas wrote: In short, to quote Charlton Heston, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers!"

You dont know how much I would love to do that.

[Proteas]

At 1/2/04 10:16 AM, ____bumcheekcity____ wrote: You dont know how much I would love to do that.

Bring it, or do you not have enough allowance saved up for airfare?

[mrpopenfresh]

At 1/2/04 05:54 AM, Mr_fidel wrote: If you ban handguns more crime will pop up actually.

Aw man, did you ever miss the target!

Well, Micheal Moore seems to disagree with you in his book "Stupid White Men". From what mister Moore is saying (and wich I have reason to believe in more than you), if you own a handgun, a memeber of your family is 22, yes TWENTY TWO more times likely to die from gunfire if you keep it in the house. And owning a gun for home protection is a big no no. Only 1 in 4 violent crimes are committed while the owner is at home. Another interesting fact, and you'll have to agree that this one is quite interesting, is that in all the instances where hanguns are used in a break in, only 2% are guns who are used ti shoot the intruder, if you can do the math you'll notice that there's 98% left for residents to accidentally shoot their loved ones or for the burglar to steal the gun and use it on the resident.

So, by using simple logic, hanguns are a BAD idea for protecting your home. You have a hangun and don't use it for defense you say? Then tell me, what other things can you do with a handgun, the only thing I can think of is using it offensively, in other words using it for crimes.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/2/04 10:27 AM, Proteas wrote: Bring it, or do you not have enough allowance saved up for airfare?

Ah, someones getting petty because I'm only 14.

[mentalis]

At 1/1/04 04:02 PM, ____bumcheekcity____ wrote: People should not have guns. If a person has a gun they can kill someone with ease. We need to take guns away from EVERYONE, and hit the Black Market at the top, not hurt the poeple at the bottom.

Taking guns from everyone would be hurting everyone. The simple thing to do would be to make murder by gun a capital offense.

[Proteas]

At 1/2/04 10:34 AM, ____bumcheekcity____ wrote:

Ah, someones getting petty because I'm only 14.

Just teasing, Bum, lighten up.

I think it's honorable that you are so politically opinionated for your age. You leave yourself open for pot shots by putting your age on your profile.

Besides... your really getting on my nerves with this "Ban all firearms" argument. I just don't understand (much less agree) with your logic.