Gun Control

[Johhny1337]

Subject here is if gun control should be tightened, loosened, or dropped alltogether. I believe gun control should be considerably loosened. It has been proven through police and medical records that increases in gun ownership have lowered crime rates. It has also been proven that laws requiring guns to be locked when not in use have increased home invasion/robbery rates, though accidental gun related injuries rose thoough wuth more lives saved than lost. Debate and reason.

[Thespus]

In what areas do you think gun control should be loosened? I think that, while gun ownership increases have prevented some crime, registration and licenses should be harder to get. If you have a kid that doesn't understand gun safety or the concept of death, lock up your gun and put it somewhere high up or unreachable and the kid should not know it exists.

Either that or guns should be reserved specifically for the military and police forces.

[Johhny1337]

At 4/8/06 08:10 PM, Dulnar wrote:

Either that or guns should be reserved specifically for the military and police forces.

That would be violation of the 2nd ammendment, the right to keep and bear arms. As for hiding or locking a gun, criminals know about lock laws. It lets them know that gun owners will have their weapon and best means of self defense locked from the owner, effectively defeating the purpose of having a gun for home defense. Your concern over licensing, criminals (and felons, who are by the way totally FORBIDDEN from getting guns-which I approve) pay no attention to gun laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be robbing, murdering, raping, and generally terrorizing people. ENFORCEMENT of current laws is needed-not introduction of stricter laws that only law abiding citizens will follow and will not deter criminals at all and would require enforcement as well.

[SnP]

At 4/8/06 08:10 PM, Dulnar wrote: In what areas do you think gun control should be loosened? I think that, while gun ownership increases have prevented some crime, registration and licenses should be harder to get.

If you have a kid that doesn't understand gun safety or the concept of death, lock up your gun and put it somewhere high up or unreachable and the kid should not know it exists.

Either that or guns should be reserved specifically for the military and police forces.

Gun bans only lead to an increase of crime. Why wouldn't it? The criminal knows that if he robs someone there is a 99.9% he will walk away with out a 9mm hole in him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
http://www.fraserins..p?sNav=nr&id=570

Teaching a kid "oh no no no, guns are evil and bad blah blah blah" has the opposite effect that you are hoping for. Instead of the kis staying away, the "forbiddon fruit" factor comes into play. Little Jimmy will be more likley to handle a gun if you do not teach him gun saftey.

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, not the police not the military.

Interesting how Hitler killed million of unarmed Jews insn't it? Or how the Soviet Union killed 140 million unarmed civilians.

[Gunter45]

Besides, look at the violent crime rate in England and Australia. They're even higher than the US even though gun control is much stricter. You can't even own a gun in England.

There is no correlation between gun control and violent crime.

[Redbob86]

I used to be for gun control, but again history is a great teacher.

Over the past centry, nations that preventing the people from arming themselves took over in many cases. Hitler banned guns so the people couldn't oppose him, the Soviet Union and China did the same thing, and guns were banned in Eastern Europe just before the wars in the 1980's when the people were helpless to defend themselves from the Serbians.

Guns are a neccessary evil. People may die, but not only do they protect you from criminals, but sometimes from your own government.

[Penal-Disturbance]

Banning guns is a no, it's a shame, but it wouldn't work, in the U.S. anyway. Gun Control is a definite yes. Too many accidents, too many idiots.

[Redbob86]

Banning guns would only make criminals more dangerous. You can't get a nation with people that know how to build guns, and then suddenly make them illegal. It will be just like drugs, people will still make guns, only this time they'll pretty much be owned ONLY by criminals. Do you have any idea how high crime would rise if the criminals with guns knew that they were not going to get shot for robbing any store, or breaking into any house?

[MsiUrine]

Teaching a kid "oh no no no, guns are evil and bad blah blah blah" has the opposite effect that you are hoping for. Instead of the kis staying away, the "forbiddon fruit" factor comes into play. Little Jimmy will be more likley to handle a gun if you do not teach him gun saftey.

I have never handled a gun, I've learned that guns are evil and blah blah blah. I am also not a dumbass kid that rebels against everything that is thrown at me. You're saying that it is more likely for me to shoot someone, than someone who has had a gun integrated throughout his whole life. That I'm not too sure of. Thats like saying a dog will never bite me if I've been around dogs all my life. The fact is if your around guns all your life chances are you'll mess around with them.

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, not the police not the military.

I really wish I could go back and time and tell those men what a big mistake they're doing writing the second amendment.

[Penal-Disturbance]

Teaching a kid "oh no no no, guns are evil and bad blah blah blah" has the opposite effect that you are hoping for. Instead of the kis staying away, the "forbiddon fruit" factor comes into play. Little Jimmy will be more likley to handle a gun if you do not teach him gun saftey.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Teaching kids guns are bad is exactly what we need, since it's the mentality that worships guns that's the problem. You just need a better way of doing it Kids can usually seperate fantasy from reality when they get old enough, but when they see idiots parading around their right to lax gun control, that's when it sinks in that guns are awesome.

[Redbob86]

I really wish I could go back and time and tell those men what a big mistake they're doing writing the second amendment.

Right, I'm sure a newly-founded nation not recognized as one by much of the world, and allready currently experiencing war with the natives will be just fine being utterly defenseless.

[Freemind]

I think we should restrict people to owning a certain type of semi-automatic pistol for protection. You don't need a AK or a rocket launcher to fight off burgulars.

[WolvenBear]

At 4/8/06 08:10 PM, Dulnar wrote: In what areas do you think gun control should be loosened? I think that, while gun ownership increases have prevented some crime, registration and licenses should be harder to get.

So, even though gun ownership prevents crime, we should seek to reduce gun ownership? That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

If you have a kid that doesn't understand gun safety or the concept of death, lock up your gun and put it somewhere high up or unreachable and the kid should not know it exists.

Or, maybe you should teach them gun safety. Sometimes, it seems like there's no common sense left in the world.

At 4/9/06 07:29 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Teaching kids guns are bad is exactly what we need, since it's the mentality that worships guns that's the problem.

No, we need to teach kids that guns are a tool to protect yourself. The "culture of gun worship" doesn't exist outside of Montana.

You just need a better way of doing it Kids can usually seperate fantasy from reality when they get old enough, but when they see idiots parading around their right to lax gun control, that's when it sinks in that guns are awesome.

Yea, it's when they see lax gun control. It's not that crime is more lucrative than a 9 to 5. It's not that the news shows them that criminals get off, so it's easier to kill someone than work. It's not rappers making gang life appear cool.

It always amuses me when a feminist opposes people owning guns. Guns are an equalizer. Plain and simple. A 300 lb man wants to rape a 120lb woman. Who's gonig to win? The man. Now give the woman a Smith and Wesson. Chances are better that she'll get home unscathed now.

At 4/9/06 12:05 PM, Freemind wrote: I think we should restrict people to owning a certain type of semi-automatic pistol for protection. You don't need a AK or a rocket launcher to fight off burgulars.

You mean, kinda the way it is now?

There are two arguments used for gun control on this board that cancel each other out.

1) You don't need an AK47 or rocket launcher for protection.
2) It's not like that peasy little gun is going to save you if the government brings a Tank in on your ass.

No, but this rocket launcher will.

[Gunter45]

At 4/9/06 12:05 PM, Freemind wrote: I think we should restrict people to owning a certain type of semi-automatic pistol for protection. You don't need a AK or a rocket launcher to fight off burgulars.

Fight off burglars? That's not what the Second Amendment is about. It's protection from government trespasses against the people. Yeah, it may not look like that's happening now, well, depending on your point of view, but the more defenseless we become, the more likely such an occurance is.

As someone mentioned before, the first step to stomping down the people is to disarm them and a pistol sure as hell isn't going to help against a war machine like the US's. If something ever happens, I'd like to take my chances with better armaments, not to mention the very act of possessing weapons makes it less likely for a police state to form.

[Thespus]

At 4/9/06 12:49 AM, Johhny1337 wrote:

At 4/8/06 08:10 PM, Dulnar wrote:

Either that or guns should be reserved specifically for the military and police forces.

That would be violation of the 2nd ammendment, the right to keep and bear arms.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

My second solution dealt a lot more with a certain interpretation of the second ammendment, as I'm sure you were aware.

[Thespus]

At 4/9/06 03:47 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/8/06 08:10 PM, Dulnar wrote: In what areas do you think gun control should be loosened? I think that, while gun ownership increases have prevented some crime, registration and licenses should be harder to get.

So, even though gun ownership prevents crime, we should seek to reduce gun ownership? That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

What's a greater motivator for getting a gun? Protection or committing a violent crime? What are the chances that someone would go through the trouble of getting a gun if their intentions are less than noble if they actually have to work for it?

If you have a kid that doesn't understand gun safety or the concept of death, lock up your gun and put it somewhere high up or unreachable and the kid should not know it exists.

Or, maybe you should teach them gun safety. Sometimes, it seems like there's no common sense left in the world.

Yeah. It's like teaching your kids about seat-belts or crossing the street. I'm sure they ALWAYS wear that uncomfortable strap and look both ways EVERY single time. Sometimes, it seems like there's no common sense left in the world.

Apparently Wolven, you don't understand the fact that, when I spoke of children not understanding the concept of death, I meant young children. When a kid is old enough, then teach them of gun safety, but even then it won't be as effective as keeping the weapon away. It's a bit like teaching safe-sex. It's not always gonna work, but the again, neither will abstinence. However, in the case of sex, you have to leave the decision up to the kid. A parent has the choice right in front of them. Lock up the pistol or face criminal charges of neglegence.

At 4/9/06 07:29 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Teaching kids guns are bad is exactly what we need, since it's the mentality that worships guns that's the problem.

No, we need to teach kids that guns are a tool to protect yourself. The "culture of gun worship" doesn't exist outside of Montana.

Really? Here in Michigan, hunting is practically a religion. I'm sure that if I lived somewhere else, I could give you an example of "gun worship" in that area as well.

You just need a better way of doing it Kids can usually seperate fantasy from reality when they get old enough, but when they see idiots parading around their right to lax gun control, that's when it sinks in that guns are awesome.

Yea, it's when they see lax gun control. It's not that crime is more lucrative than a 9 to 5. It's not that the news shows them that criminals get off, so it's easier to kill someone than work. It's not rappers making gang life appear cool.

I might actually agree with you here.

It always amuses me when a feminist opposes people owning guns. Guns are an equalizer. Plain and simple. A 300 lb man wants to rape a 120lb woman. Who's gonig to win? The man. Now give the woman a Smith and Wesson. Chances are better that she'll get home unscathed now.

There are non-lethal alternatives. Actually tasers are illegal in Michigan. It's unfornate.

At 4/9/06 12:05 PM, Freemind wrote: I think we should restrict people to owning a certain type of semi-automatic pistol for protection. You don't need a AK or a rocket launcher to fight off burgulars.

You mean, kinda the way it is now?

The way it used to be nationally. State-wide, I'm not too sure of.

There are two arguments used for gun control on this board that cancel each other out.

1) You don't need an AK47 or rocket launcher for protection.
2) It's not like that peasy little gun is going to save you if the government brings a Tank in on your ass.

No, but this rocket launcher will.

Well, if the government is bringing a tank in on your ass that probably means you did something stupid and got the rocket launcher illegally.

[mofomojo]

It's hard to crack down on Illegal arms sellers - since any conflict with them will most likely be violent since they are armed.

So yeah, not much we can do.

[Manikan]

my argument will always be the same, if you have guns legal then your only arming those who will commit the crime. the second amendmant doesn't agree with me and some of you don't but if it stops some crime even just 1% then its better than nothing

[WolvenBear]

At 4/9/06 05:14 PM, Dulnar wrote: What's a greater motivator for getting a gun? Protection or committing a violent crime? What are the chances that someone would go through the trouble of getting a gun if their intentions are less than noble if they actually have to work for it?

More people own guns than commit crime. Therefore crime is not a big motivator. And those who get guns to commit crimes don't "work" for it. They get them illegally. Tell me how making the rules tougher on those who follow them, will affect those who don't.

Yeah. It's like teaching your kids about seat-belts or crossing the street. I'm sure they ALWAYS wear that uncomfortable strap and look both ways EVERY single time. Sometimes, it seems like there's no common sense left in the world.

Do you teach your kids that it's wrong to cross the street or to drive a car? Of course not. You teach them safety and then hope that they do the best. However, when it comes to guns all of a sudden it's "lock it away and never speak of it". We teach our children safety everywhere else, BUT HERE.

Apparently Wolven, you don't understand the fact that, when I spoke of children not understanding the concept of death, I meant young children. When a kid is old enough, then teach them of gun safety, but even then it won't be as effective as keeping the weapon away. It's a bit like teaching safe-sex. It's not always gonna work, but the again, neither will abstinence. However, in the case of sex, you have to leave the decision up to the kid. A parent has the choice right in front of them. Lock up the pistol or face criminal charges of neglegence.

I think comparing gun use to abstinence is a great comparison. Tell your kid, don't have sex, and it fails miserably. Explain why and you have a better chance. Same with a gun. Tell them not to use it and they still might, (injuring themselves) but teach them and they run a better chance of not getting hurt.

Don't be daft here. You still put your guns in a safe place, much as anything else. You make it sound like people just throw their guns on the kids lap and say "Good luck Junior". You keep your guns in a safe place when they aren't in use, just like you don't leave your butcher knife in the middle of the floor. Come on now.

There are non-lethal alternatives. Actually tasers are illegal in Michigan. It's unfornate.

OK, hooray tazers. They're illegal here. And besides, tazers are a one use weapon. Miss and you're screwed. More than one assailant and you're screwed. Stun guns aren't much better. You have to hit the right spot to debilitate, and you have a VERY limited range.

Well, if the government is bringing a tank in on your ass that probably means you did something stupid and got the rocket launcher illegally.

Uh huh. All those people in Tienamin Square (spelled wrong I'm sure) we're all horrible people. Just because things are great in America now doesn't mean they'll always be.

I was being melodramatic, as I am when I egg on the "Bush is taking away all our rights" crowd. But, serious for a moment. Every single fascist regime in our history has taken guns away from their citizens.

I think it was Marx who said. "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our people have guns, why would we let them have ideas?"

[MegalomaniacVirus]

It's really funny how people complain about the second amendment. It's funny how they think the 2nd amendment is where the founding fathers fucked up the wording. But let's examine this:

"A well regulated militia, nessecary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It's not the militia's right to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people. In the revolution, they were attacked by a state militia and they knew the only way to prevent this from happening again was to make sure the people can have arms.

[MegalomaniacVirus]

At 4/9/06 05:42 PM, Manikan wrote: my argument will always be the same, if you have guns legal then your only arming those who will commit the crime. the second amendmant doesn't agree with me and some of you don't but if it stops some crime even just 1% then its better than nothing

So you really feel brave going into a bank knowing that the employees and customers might be carrying a weapon?

A shot to the head stops rape in an instant and "I've got a gun" usually stops it from happening in the first place.

[WolvenBear]

At 4/9/06 05:42 PM, Manikan wrote: my argument will always be the same, if you have guns legal then your only arming those who will commit the crime. the second amendmant doesn't agree with me and some of you don't but if it stops some crime even just 1% then its better than nothing

It doesn't stop crime though. Disarming the citizenry raises crime. Look at England.
Your argument is idiotic. There are as many as a million illegal weapons out there. They're not legal now, but people still have them. Pray tell, how will FURTHER illegalizing them make any difference?

[lapis]

At 4/9/06 05:58 PM, WolvenBear wrote: I think it was Marx who said. "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our people have guns, why would we let them have ideas?"

Stalin. Why would Marx say that?

[therealsylvos]

At 4/9/06 06:36 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Banning guns is a no, it's a shame, but it wouldn't work, in the U.S. anyway. Gun Control is a definite yes. Too many accidents, too many idiots.

accidents= "natural selection at work" as for the idiots while they may kill some people they will end up dead as well.

my opinion is drop it all together.

[Begoner]

Stalin. Why would Marx say that?

Because all commies are the same? Don't they teach you that in school? Or maybe because Marx decided to scrap his entire political philosophy and say the polar opposite of what he usually preached?

[therealsylvos]

At 4/9/06 05:42 PM, Manikan wrote: my argument will always be the same, if you have guns legal then your only arming those who will commit the crime. the second amendmant doesn't agree with me and some of you don't but if it stops some crime even just 1% then its better than nothing

are you serious? i think you are just a little confused. most people that legally own guns today dont commit crimes with them. to the contrary by making them illegal you are taking away the ability for people to defend themselves. its simple logic. if someone doesnt care about killing you think he will care about owning a gun illegaly?

[therealsylvos]

At 4/9/06 05:14 PM, Dulnar wrote:

At 4/9/06 03:47 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/8/06 08:10 PM, Dulnar wrote: In what areas do you think gun control should be loosened? I think that, while gun ownership increases have prevented some crime, registration and licenses should be harder to get.

So, even though gun ownership prevents crime, we should seek to reduce gun ownership? That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

What's a greater motivator for getting a gun? Protection or committing a violent crime? What are the chances that someone would go through the trouble of getting a gun if their intentions are less than noble if they actually have to work for it?

UMM is crack is illegal, it serves no "noble' purpose and yet, people still get their hands on it.

If you have a kid that doesn't understand gun safety or the concept of death, lock up your gun and put it somewhere high up or unreachable and the kid should not know it exists.

Or, maybe you should teach them gun safety. Sometimes, it seems like there's no common sense left in the world.

Yeah. It's like teaching your kids about seat-belts or crossing the street. I'm sure they ALWAYS wear that uncomfortable strap and look both ways EVERY single time. Sometimes, it seems like there's no common sense left in the world.

Umm whenever i handle a weapon i always make sure the safety is on and i always make my finger isnt on the trigger until im ready to shoot. if you teach a kid to use it properly and teach him to respect it i gurantee you he wont take it lightly

Apparently Wolven, you don't understand the fact that, when I spoke of children not understanding the concept of death, I meant young children. When a kid is old enough, then teach them of gun safety, but even then it won't be as effective as keeping the weapon away. It's a bit like teaching safe-sex. It's not always gonna work, but the again, neither will abstinence. However, in the case of sex, you have to leave the decision up to the kid. A parent has the choice right in front of them. Lock up the pistol or face criminal charges of neglegence.

hm you seem to contradict yourself here. you see most really young kids listen to directions al the way through. like those kids running away from home but cant becasue they can cross the street? young kids will do exactly whan an adult tells them to do.

At 4/9/06 07:29 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Teaching kids guns are bad is exactly what we need, since it's the mentality that worships guns that's the problem.

No, we need to teach kids that guns are a tool to protect yourself. The "culture of gun worship" doesn't exist outside of Montana.

Really? Here in Michigan, hunting is practically a religion. I'm sure that if I lived somewhere else, I could give you an example of "gun worship" in that area as well.

Gun worship? hunting? i am sublimly confident that any parent that goes hunting will drill into his childs head tthat a gun is not a toy and teach his child how to properly use a gun.its really not such a diffucult thing to understand.

You just need a better way of doing it Kids can usually seperate fantasy from reality when they get old enough, but when they see idiots parading around their right to lax gun control, that's when it sinks in that guns are awesome.

Yea, it's when they see lax gun control. It's not that crime is more lucrative than a 9 to 5. It's not that the news shows them that criminals get off, so it's easier to kill someone than work. It's not rappers making gang life appear cool.

I might actually agree with you here.

It always amuses me when a feminist opposes people owning guns. Guns are an equalizer. Plain and simple. A 300 lb man wants to rape a 120lb woman. Who's gonig to win? The man. Now give the woman a Smith and Wesson. Chances are better that she'll get home unscathed now.

There are non-lethal alternatives. Actually tasers are illegal in Michigan. It's unfornate.

What about the puerto rican day riots? where its one woman and 12 bestial males? a taser wont help much...

At 4/9/06 12:05 PM, Freemind wrote: I think we should restrict people to owning a certain type of semi-automatic pistol for protection. You don't need a AK or a rocket launcher to fight off burgulars.

erm what about in a case of civil unrest? like what happened in new orleans?

You mean, kinda the way it is now?

The way it used to be nationally. State-wide, I'm not too sure of.

There are two arguments used for gun control on this board that cancel each other out.

1) You don't need an AK47 or rocket launcher for protection.
2) It's not like that peasy little gun is going to save you if the government brings a Tank in on your ass.

No, but this rocket launcher will.

Well, if the government is bringing a tank in on your ass that probably means you did something stupid and got the rocket launcher illegally.

if the governemnt brings in takns to take away guns every gun owner will congregate and try to fight them off. then their only hope is that soldiers arent going to want to fight their own family and friends

[Redbob86]

There are enough people in America that know how to make guns, that this will only create a much larger illegal weapons market. In other words, the criminals would still have guns, only this time law-abiding citizens won't. They won't be able to have guns to protect their homes or their businesses. And criminals would KNOW this, and thus robbery would rise to a whole new level, for now criminals won't have to worry about getting shot when they hold up a liquor store or break into someone's house.

[Penal-Disturbance]

It always amuses me when a feminist opposes people owning guns. Guns are an equalizer. Plain and simple. A 300 lb man wants to rape a 120lb woman. Who's gonig to win? The man. Now give the woman a Smith and Wesson. Chances are better that she'll get home unscathed now.

There are non-lethal alternatives. Actually tasers are illegal in Michigan. It's unfornate.

What about the puerto rican day riots? where its one woman and 12 bestial males? a taser wont help much...

Guns are lethal force. If she defends herself against 12 males, there's a chance all could wind up dead. No way is the life of one woman worth 12 people, even if she is innocent. Unless they're a gang of pure evil criminals, I can't see the justifcation.

The main flaw with all this, of course, is that it presumes that criminals don't have gones, and are completely unaware of the fact that common people have gones. Which is utterly idiotic.

Anyway situation you can put someone in, if the person has a gun, the criminal will have a gun, probably a better gun, and be better at using it. What's more, there's less chance you'll see them coming.

The main problem is that much of America isn't responsible enough to own a gun. There's a reason why the US's murder rate is 3 times that of Switzerland.

[therealsylvos]

At 4/9/06 08:32 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

It always amuses me when a feminist opposes people owning guns. Guns are an equalizer. Plain and simple. A 300 lb man wants to rape a 120lb woman. Who's gonig to win? The man. Now give the woman a Smith and Wesson. Chances are better that she'll get home unscathed now.

There are non-lethal alternatives. Actually tasers are illegal in Michigan. It's unfornate.

What about the puerto rican day riots? where its one woman and 12 bestial males? a taser wont help much...

Guns are lethal force. If she defends herself against 12 males, there's a chance all could wind up dead. No way is the life of one woman worth 12 people, even if she is innocent. Unless they're a gang of pure evil criminals, I can't see the justifcation.

are you fucking serious? do you listen to yourself think? your saying if 12 men want to rape a woman she has no right to defend herself???

The main flaw with all this, of course, is that it presumes that criminals don't have gones, and are completely unaware of the fact that common people have gones. Which is utterly idiotic.

no. it presumes that criminals may or may not have guns, and at least it will give law-abiding citizens a fighting chance

Anyway situation you can put someone in, if the person has a gun, the criminal will have a gun, probably a better gun, and be better at using it. What's more, there's less chance you'll see them coming.

why would the criminal be better at using it? what kind of presumption is that. but it still doesnt matter. whats better the criminal has a gun and you dont, or you both have guns?

The main problem is that much of America isn't responsible enough to own a gun. There's a reason why the US's murder rate is 3 times that of Switzerland.

umm another possible reason is that guns are totally infused in siss culture, shooting is actually their national sport.