gun control

[Sirterox]

i favor the opinion that people should all have guns in their homes. Guns are not deadly.

[TheEvilOne]

Even if guns were banned, people determined to kill someone will still find a way to obtain one, and I wouldn't like it if the only way for people to protect themselves from criminals were to become criminals themselves. Guns should be kept out of the hands of convicted felons, but banning them entirely would never work.

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 07:50 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Even if guns were banned, people determined to kill someone will still find a way to obtain one, and I wouldn't like it if the only way for people to protect themselves from criminals were to become criminals themselves. Guns should be kept out of the hands of convicted felons, but banning them entirely would never work.

I didnt say i wanted them banned. I said that i favored the opinion that everyone should own a gun. Yes convicted felons should not be allowed to have guns but i think that regular people should have one. Like i said before, guns are not deadly.

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/15/03 07:57 PM, Sirterox wrote: I didnt say i wanted them banned.

I know, I was talking to the nuts who do want them banned. I'm glad to see you share my opinion.

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 08:00 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 2/15/03 07:57 PM, Sirterox wrote: I didnt say i wanted them banned.

I know, I was talking to the nuts who do want them banned. I'm glad to see you share my opinion.

Thanks, im just waiting for some one to dissagree =D

[Ted-Easton]

At 2/15/03 06:53 PM, Sirterox wrote: Guns are not deadly.

Anyone else see a problem with that?

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 08:43 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:

At 2/15/03 06:53 PM, Sirterox wrote: Guns are not deadly.

Anyone else see a problem with that?

Guns are not deadly ted. Think about it, if i place a gun on a table, who is it gonna kill? But, if i place it in the hands of a person, that person is now deadly.

[Ted-Easton]

Guns are deadly.
I don't think they should be banned, as there is a need for them, but they should be discouraged, and incentives made to not have them.
They are still dangerous weapons, and not something we want on the streets.

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 10:48 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Guns are deadly.
I don't think they should be banned, as there is a need for them, but they should be discouraged, and incentives made to not have them.
They are still dangerous weapons, and not something we want on the streets.

Guns are only as dangerous as the person wielding the wheapon. Like i said. if i place a gun down on a table how deadly is that gun? It isnt going to pop up and shoot random people. and there is no way it can just go off unless a PERSON pulls the trigger.

[distorted]

I am a gun owner, in fact I own several, and I don't feel that guns kill people, idiocy kills people. The gun does nothing, it's the person who pulls the trigger. I love collecting guns, and fire them at a range often. Outlawing guns is not even smart, because people would just try harder to get them. I don't ever see them repealing the second amendment.

[Renegade51]

I live in Canada, where gun control was just introduced. I'm all for the idea, I think its a great way to try to reduce gun related crimes and incedents. The thing im not for is that you have to pay to have your gun registered. And its not a small amount of money to do this. by having the high price attacted it really just makes more people refuse to pay.

[random-scribble]

I live in England, and you can't get a gun here unless you have a license... I'm not sure how hard that is to get, but I know very few people who have a gun in their house. I personally prefer it that way. Even if the person who owns a gun is not an idiot, and is reliable enough to not go on shooting sprees, it makes it easier for people, e.g. a gun-owners children, to get hold of a gun, and not be aware of what they could be doing...
Also, for every 1,000 or so responsible citizens who would have a gun purely for safety, you're gonna get 1 or 2 idiots who just run around in the street letting off waves of bullets. I'd prefer not to live in that town, myself.

[Ted-Easton]

If you put a gun down on the table, it needs a person to shoot it for it to be deadly. A little difficult.

But what if you don't put a gun down on the table? Then you need a person, and a gun, and for the person to pull the trigger.

We want to stay as far as possible from anything deadly. They same argument could be made for nuclear weapons. They're perfectly harmless. Until someone detonates them.

[Sirterox]

At 2/16/03 03:08 AM, Renegade51 wrote: I live in Canada, where gun control was just introduced. I'm all for the idea, I think its a great way to try to reduce gun related crimes and incedents. The thing im not for is that you have to pay to have your gun registered. And its not a small amount of money to do this. by having the high price attacted it really just makes more people refuse to pay.

Thats their idea of gun control. If they say that you have to pay a large sum of money then no one is going to pay it. Therefore; not many people will own guns.

[Sirterox]

At 2/16/03 06:33 AM, random_scribble wrote: I live in England, and you can't get a gun here unless you have a license... I'm not sure how hard that is to get, but I know very few people who have a gun in their house. I personally prefer it that way. Even if the person who owns a gun is not an idiot, and is reliable enough to not go on shooting sprees, it makes it easier for people, e.g. a gun-owners children, to get hold of a gun, and not be aware of what they could be doing...
Also, for every 1,000 or so responsible citizens who would have a gun purely for safety, you're gonna get 1 or 2 idiots who just run around in the street letting off waves of bullets. I'd prefer not to live in that town, myself.

Exactly, but if everyone has a gun then not many people will go on shooting sprees because as soon as some one discharges the wheapon in public towards another person, then the public is going to unload on that moron. Im not sure what state it is but one of the US states has a lot of guns (not texas) and it is one of the safest places in the world.

[EvilEgbert]

At 2/15/03 11:23 PM, distorted wrote: I am a gun owner, in fact I own several, and I don't feel that guns kill people, idiocy kills people. The gun does nothing, it's the person who pulls the trigger. I love collecting guns, and fire them at a range often. Outlawing guns is not even smart, because people would just try harder to get them. I don't ever see them repealing the second amendment.

Exactly, idiocy kills people. Idiocy is giving idiots the possibility to obtain a gun.

[Sweden-Forever]

we need bullet control

[Best-Of]

if everyone has a gun then not many people will go on shooting sprees because as soon as some one discharges the wheapon in public towards another person, then the public is going to unload on that moron. Im not sure what state it is but one of the US states has a lot of guns (not texas) and it is one of the safest places in the world.

How about if some1 is mentally ill and can still get a gun since they are just everywhere....does he deserve 2 b shot???

[random-scribble]

At 2/16/03 01:41 PM, Sirterox wrote:

At 2/16/03 06:33 AM, random_scribble wrote: I live in England, and you can't get a gun here unless you have a license... I'm not sure how hard that is to get, but I know very few people who have a gun in their house. I personally prefer it that way. Even if the person who owns a gun is not an idiot, and is reliable enough to not go on shooting sprees, it makes it easier for people, e.g. a gun-owners children, to get hold of a gun, and not be aware of what they could be doing...
Also, for every 1,000 or so responsible citizens who would have a gun purely for safety, you're gonna get 1 or 2 idiots who just run around in the street letting off waves of bullets. I'd prefer not to live in that town, myself.

Exactly, but if everyone has a gun then not many people will go on shooting sprees because as soon as some one discharges the wheapon in public towards another person, then the public is going to unload on that moron. Im not sure what state it is but one of the US states has a lot of guns (not texas) and it is one of the safest places in the world.

That would be giving the law into the hands of the public, and it still means you end up with two deaths (the first person who was shot, and then the shooter after the public kill him) which you wouldn't have had in the first place. It also effectively means having the death penalty, as anyone who kills someone else in public will be shot immediately. I'm not gonna go into that, I'm sure there's another thread somewhere on this board about the death penalty, but I personally don't agree with it.

[b3nnic3]

its a right to own and BARE arms...meaning that you can carry them around with you....cant police understand our rights?

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/17/03 12:07 PM, Markus_Kangas wrote: How about if some1 is mentally ill and can still get a gun since they are just everywhere....does he deserve 2 b shot???

As I said before, although the general public should have the right to bear arms, there are certain people who should not be allowed to own guns, such as convicted felons. I think the mentally ill would also fall into that category.

[Spike-J-Wolfwood]

After WW 2 the leader of Japan was asked, why if they had such an advantage over the US military due to the surprise attack how come there was no attempt to occupy any of our cities. In reply, he simply stated that it is impossible to occupy a nation where every other person is armed.

[Ted-Easton]

I know it would never happen, but I think the US constitution would be a lot better without the whole "right to bear arms" thing.
It just seems to cause headaches for everyone, that and the "right to free speech". As soon as some authority figure tries to come down on someone, they hide behind one of them.

[Spike-J-Wolfwood]

Hide behind them is right. That is what they are there for, they are our rights. Would you rather we not have such rights?

[Interface]

At 2/15/03 06:53 PM, Sirterox wrote: i favor the opinion that people should all have guns in their homes. Guns are not deadly.

they're not deadly?? wtf?? most people who get shot by them end up dying

[juggalo1]

guns shoundnt be banned. it would be in violation of the 2 conmandment

[swayside]

saying "guns cause crime" is like saying "women cause prostitution". are you going to ban them, too?

[Ted-Easton]

Yes, we should get rid of "the right to bear arms". People continually take it out of context to hide behind it. Change it to something like "the right to own properly stored firearms in a private location with proper licenses"

[JMHX]

At 2/18/03 07:32 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Yes, we should get rid of "the right to bear arms". People continually take it out of context to hide behind it. Change it to something like "the right to own properly stored firearms in a private location with proper licenses"

It's a good idea, but the gun lobby would never let that happen. We need to get rid of it. That and the cursed tobacco lobby.

[EvilEgbert]

Simple question: Why is there much more dommestics gun related crime (and accidents) in the US then in Europe.
Now answer this question for yourself and you'll see my point.