Remove this ad
First  Prev  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
49720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/27/12
Seeing as I own two firearms myself, yes, yes we should be able to.

I enjoy the feel and power of a firearm. Taking it to the range and loosing a few rounds is a great stress reliever. Concealed Carry as well. While I don't own a CCL (Concealed Carry License) myself due to living in Hawaii for the moment, nothing wrong with being given training, taught what actually constitutes "Deadly Force", and registering yourself with the local police dept.
100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Heaven
Offline
Posted 9/27/12
no... cause it will bring a crime...
49720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/27/12 , edited 9/27/12
How would it..."bring a crime"? What exactly are you basing this opinion on?
Banned
35665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Stoke, England
Offline
Posted 9/28/12
No. If I ran a country, it would be completely gun-free bar the military. Real men fight with their fists. If they get their arse kicked, perhaps raped, hell, at least it was with dignity.
40470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / So Cal
Offline
Posted 9/28/12

SoTa_PoP wrote:

Are you saying if I gave you a gun you would kill someone? Then how bout I give you a gun anyways so you can kill yourself.


Ha! Most people only read a few posts and will never see this. So, I feel it is my duty to give it a bump.
Posted 9/29/12

dark_paradox_21 wrote:


Hintkin wrote:

People should carry guns ONLY IF they are in war or there's a terrorism going on..
Security guards ,Police and Military should be the ones to have guns in the first place because it's their job and responsibility to protect the unarmed citizens.
People who are not even on those jobs should not have one. Guns are not some kind of fashion sense.
Self protection should not be the case.. Because there's no justification and evidence that the one who's holding the gun is right of shooting his/her "enemy" or not. How would you know that the one suspect is attempting to shoot the "victim"? That's just my opinion though



Who protects the people from the police?

There have been numerous cases of law-enforcement officers using unnecessary or unwarranted force. In the Northwest US a few years back, a deaf old man was shot to death for carving on a bit of scrap wood with a knife. There are several unwarranted law-enforcement killings each year -- and plenty of information to be found if someone were to go looking (though they don't often make the morning news).

In Romania (and other former soviet block countries) when the Soviet Union took power, the first thing they did was make everyone register weapons. The second thing they did was to round up all of those registered weapons (and the law-abiding people obeyed the law) then all the land, factories, businesses and houses were redistributed in accordance with the "equality" of the communist ideal.

In the US prior to and during the Revolution, English officers rounded up and arrested community leaders and businessmen who expressed pro-american attitudes (like the Red scare or our current airport security). It was this callous indifference towards the rights of the people that, in great part, inspired the American Revolution.

Carrying weapons isn't about hunting or target shooting. It isn't even necessarily about home defense. An armed citizenry is a free citizenry. In any republic or democracy, the people hire law enforcement (and military) as servants either directly ( in a democracy) or through representatives (in a republic). The police and military exist to SERVE the people, not to protect them, mother them, watch over them, and certainly never to control them.

As a society as a whole, the presence of weaponry in the civilian population acts as a check-and-balance in the governmental process. There are morons in the world and there will be an occasional rare accident (although medical malpractice kills many, many, many times more people than gunshot wounds each year). There will be the occasional psychotic who goes on a rampage. Life is never perfectly safe and banning guns will not make it any safer. There have been numerous mass-killings with improvised bombs, knives ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre ), gasses and even AIRPLANES (Remember one September a few years back?). Banning guns does not, on the macro scale, noticeably increase the statistical safety of the population. A psychopath driven to the point of going on a murder spree is very unlikely to check with his local laws to make sure his murder weapons are socially acceptable. By contrast, countries such as Switzerland have actually had good success with REQUIRING gun ownership. Switzerland for example has remained neutral in global conflicts for decades and decades. Even Hitler went right around it in WWII since it is virtually impossible to subdue and armed citizenry. Crime rates also drop since assault and theft are very unpopular when the victims shoot back.

So banning guns does not make you more likely to be safe. The whole point of the 2nd amendment in the US is to ensure that the government obeys the people -- not the other way around. Arming only the police and military is the quickest way to ensure corruption.

Fear is a useless emotion. If you are unfamiliar with guns, learn a bit about them. Fear of guns or people with guns is as absurd as fear of kitchen knives or motor vehicles. Humans are a tool-using species and guns are one of the many tools we use in life. There are many of them all over the world. They are everywhere and they aren't going away.




Maybe I'm wrong about the police.. Thanks for the reminder but I believe not all police are like those in the news..
You can't trust anybody but you can't also trust yourself for not hurting someone with your gun.. Anytime there's a big chance that you'll think you want to kill somebody with your gun.. That evil thought will haunt you until you'd be able to shoot somebody..
As I was saying that's only my opinion for this topic. I'm not being factual..
Fezik 
44232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Chi-town
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
While hunting for stats, (google failed me for once...... apparently celebrities rated higher than math....) I came acros this interesting site. Feel free to compare your country verse others. Not sure how accurate it is, but quite a bit looked right. ( which was scary and confusing xD)

http://www.nationmaster.com
953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / england
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
owning guns for protection is the ultimate irony as it only makes you and your family more unsafe,even standard police officers should not have firearms in my opinion.
25154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Ohio
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
And you're opinion would be wrong. "Not allowed"? Even if it was illegal, how would that stop criminals from getting guns? Like drugs, it doesn't matter if it is against the law. I'm not a NRA member or a right wing conservative or any stereotypical gun defender. If criminals will always have guns, and they will, then I am glad that I have a gun and my police officers have a gun. Thinking a gun ban will protect your family is even more ironic.
17012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Seek the Mouse
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
The irony is that the whole thing is a never ending cycle of violence, irregardless of weapon type. There will always be 'evil' in this world, whether its a criminal or some rogue government. Owning a weapon does not guarantee your safety and in many cases puts you in a worse situation. Taking them away from those that use them for good purposes such sport does not reduce violence. If a criminal spots a target worth enough, even if that target is armed, the criminal will attack. Its all dependent on risk vs reward. If the person with the shotgun in the home or the carry permit is a high enough reward, then that person will be attacked by a criminal. That's the way it is, horrible as it may seem.

59093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
Guns? maybe not.

People should be allowed to have long barreled weapons with limited magazines, like shotguns and rifles. Hunting is a great tradition that is fairly unique to North America at this point. There are very few places in the world where you can 1) own your own rifle or shotgun and 2) at your discretion, with the proper permit, go out and shoot something and provide for yourself or your family.

In much of the world, hunting is something only the elite of the elite get to do, as the resources are far more scarce.

That being said, there isn't much reason to let people own a hand gun. How many of the public shootings in the past 30 years have been affected by people who have their own firearms? people illegally possessing firearms in areas where other people are not allowed to carry generally speaking doesn't help much.

For personal protection is a bunch of shit. If you want protection, get pepper spray or a taser. Fire arms are NOT effective means of defense in the distance that you can consider someone threatening your personal safety. As well, you can not safely protect another person from a distance more than 10 feet with a hand gun. You are more likely to hurt the person you are trying to protect.
8806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 9/29/12
Maybe you don't need to ban the guns, just raise the price of bullets to $100 a piece. :P

Next time a mugger or drug addict might think twice about spending a bullet, might cut into their drug and booze funds. ;)

All kidding aside, I'm ok with guns.
Posted 9/30/12
Uh yes.
136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / U.S.A
Offline
Posted 9/30/12
Woooooow...... you know, everywhere rape is illegal, but there are still rapists around so why don't we just legalize the act of rape since it's not dying down!!???
136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / U.S.A
Offline
Posted 9/30/12 , edited 9/30/12
People who are not even in a legal career profession (Police officers, FBI, ppl in the military...) should not have guns in the first place!!!!!! It is not the only long-distance weapon for "self-defense." Ever heard of a tazer or something else that doesn't kill your enemy like %80 of the time. All I know is that even if guns somehow do become illegal it's impossible to take all the guns in America that citizens have in their possession(-__-) but still there are other ways to protect yourself than using a weapon to shoot someone which can possibly kill them. (Take LL Cool J's for example...)
My choice of defense would either be mace, a tazer, breaking something hard over someone's head, or swinging my metal bat across their crotch area, or legs...



Call me crazy, but I would rather have my house robbed than be responsible for taking someone's life....
First  Prev  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.