First  Prev  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
55264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
To own a weapons is to mean's your ready to protect your loved one your life and property. From who criminals and when the government finally steps out of line. Go through history learn about the past before you give a emotional answer one way or the other. I will say this a government that fears it people is likely to have a permanent political elite. Here in the U.S.A were one step away but we have run our course of over 200 years. It is time to fall into anarchy when the majority people think there owed just because they live here it the end.
42057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/13 , edited 1/5/13
So here's the situation most people don't consider when they start to talk of banning guns:
I live on a farm. I have one weapon in my house. It is a rifle. It is to protect my animals. I will not aim it at another human, but I do have coyotes in the area. A gun is needed to protect my animals from abuse by other animals in nature.

My animals (over many many generations) have been bred to be basically domesticated. (I have sheep.) They do not have the means to protect themselves, it is up to me to be a good Shepherd. They rely on me for everything from food, to water to shelter.

So should people own guns? Absolutely.

That said, I have no problems on restrictions on what kind of weapons someone owns. I could protect my animals with a muzzle loader. There's no reason I can find that anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle with an extended magazine.

Edit:
This is much like I might need a stick of dynamite for blowing a stump out, but there's no reason I need a nuclear bomb, or even a grenade.

I support reasonable limits on weapons. I mean when was the last time you heard of someone using a muzzle loader in a drive by?
55264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
you really should read up on your history.
3363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / You don't need to...
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
I say no, just because guns only have one use and that is to kill living things. Knives can be used as a weapon, but they are also used for cutting food, etc. But since people love their guns so much, at least take a test to see if you are mentally capable of wielding a gun. Even killing animals for fun with a gun just gives me shudders down my spine. There are other things you can do for fun. A lot of other things.
42057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/13

tarakelly wrote:

you really should read up on your history.


I didn't say it didn't happen, I asked when was the last time you heard of it happening.
42057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/13

MoxiRoxi wrote:

I say no, just because guns only have one use and that is to kill living things. Knives can be used as a weapon, but they are also used for cutting food, etc. But since people love their guns so much, at least take a test to see if you are mentally capable of wielding a gun. Even killing animals for fun with a gun just gives me shudders down my spine. There are other things you can do for fun. A lot of other things.


First, I take exception to the though that anyone killing an animal must be doing it for fun. You simply haven't encountered a case where a gun might be used to kill an animal for a purpose. See my post above for such a case.

Furthermore, I take exception to the though that a gun is only used for killing. What about a starter pistol? What about scaring off wild life?

A gun is a tool, and the uses are only limited by your imagination. That said, by your narrow definition bows and arrows would need to be banned, as well as swords.
23 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
own guns not bullets or make them really expensive
20898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
Guns don't kill, people do. And people this stupid shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Tarya 
47511 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Glen Allen, Virgi...
Online
Posted 1/5/13
I don't need 30 round magazines. I "want" 30 round magazines. I am sure anyone that has been posting here has at least tried to load a magazine...if not, please try it out at a local gun shop. It is not easy. In fact, it is a pain in the arse.
So, when I want to take the AR-15 out to the range to shoot some targets, having to reload a magazine is a waste of my time.

In the case of the CT shooting, there was an argument that if the shooter hadn't had a large capacity magazine that there would have been time to intercept him as he reloaded. That is a bunch of bull. Anyone that has a gun can tell you that even with a 10 round magazine, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to eject and reload. The size of the magazine would not have saved the children or brave teachers - unfortunately nothing could save them once this deranged person made up their mind to kill them.
The argument was also incredibly misleading - while the assailant did have an AR-15 at the school, it was left in the car and never even used in the attack (from the reports that I have read). Not to mention, these guns belonged to his mother. The mother he murdered before coming to the school....
He planned on killing. It didn't matter the weapon he would have killed someone regardless. There will ALWAYS be people like this in the world, with or without guns.

There is a reason for people to own guns and high capacity magazines. It is our right to protect ourselves, our property and our freedom.
If President Obama were to say tomorrow that he decided he was going to be the dictator of this country, that he owns the military, the judicial and administrative branches of the government, and that he wasn't going anywhere in 4 years and was enacting laws to subdue the populace - how would we prevent this if we could not defend ourselves? If all we have are muzzle loaders, and bows and arrows, can we dismantle the armed forces?
There are countries where this has happened (remember the Holocaust?). This IS occurring in other countries (hello, anyone in N. Korea want to stand up and talk out against Kim Jong Un? Maybe you would appreciate an AK-47 in Syria where the civil war there has resulted in over 60,000 deaths?).

I personally believe that if drivers education and sex education can be taught in school, then gun education should be taught as well. There are schools that have archery as one of the electives, I don't see the difference in shooting a target with a bow or with a pistol.
I will keep my guns. I will fight to keep them. I will teach my children how to use them and use them safely and proficiently (as I will also teach them how to read, write, cook, sew, drive, and other useful and meaningful things).

Anyone who is scared of guns or doesn't like them and doesn't want them for themselves, fine, don't own one. But don't force your values and your fears on me.
32741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / CA
Online
Posted 1/5/13
Plain and simple: Yes
29 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Edmonton, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
If anyones ever read on news sites the question "Should teachers be allowed to carry guns to school" I *facepalm*

--> NO just for obvious reasons
20790 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
...I honestly think no. Guns have one purpose - hurting, and killing. If you have no bullets, what can you use a gun for? You can't eat it, you can't wear it... maybe it'd make a huge paper weight.

This being said, I understand that in our world, there are some people who need to carry guns to combat other people wearing guns and using bombs. But I think the world would be nicer if guns had never been invented.
67797 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/5/13

loki_lee wrote:

...I honestly think no. Guns have one purpose - hurting, and killing. If you have no bullets, what can you use a gun for? You can't eat it, you can't wear it... maybe it'd make a huge paper weight.

This being said, I understand that in our world, there are some people who need to carry guns to combat other people wearing guns and using bombs. But I think the world would be nicer if guns had never been invented.


No. you're wrong there. Guns, like any tool, are multipurpose. It's this sort of attitude that leads to polarization of the debate. Maybe if both sides could concede that the other has some truth on their side you could get somewhere.



17012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/13
I just think the real question is whether or not guns should be allowed to own stupid people o_o..
20899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/13


(I'll preface this by stating that it is late and I'm tired and so this may end up being a ramble that says nothing worth reading)

Interesting reply - I wasn't expecting to be presented with differing definitions of objective and subjective. Personally, I feel the fact that there is a need for the second definition proves my argument.

Nonetheless, I'll focus my reply on definition two, with its idea that personal beliefs are valid points by which to decide what is moral.

Most people will, I think, agree that it is immoral to bring harm to another person. Most will, I think, agree that almost every set of rules, laws or moral codes is based around that idea.

Imagine, then, a society formed with that as its guiding principal. Sounds great, but doesn't any action that helps one person ultimately harm another? Assuming that statement is accepted (if it isn't, please give an example of an action of consequence that proves this false), now we have to compromise our rules so our society can function. We have to decide that it is ok to harm people, but only in certain ways. This starts us down a slippery slope, doesn't it? That, to me, is the crux of the problem with morality - aren't we, in the end, just rationalizing our actions so we can feel good about ourselves?

Now, I don't worry over whether my helping somebody next to me will disadvantage somebody across the world. I know that it very well may, but I can't live trying to avoid that, it would be impossible. Perhaps it makes me a hypocrite, but I follow a moral code similar to most in the world. I don't fault people for trying to live in what they consider a moral manner - in the end, you have to be able to live with yourself.

The idea though that one set of morals is somehow more moral than another, when they're all just based off beliefs, seems to me absurd. If you can murder and steal and lie without hating yourself, and you can do it to your gain, I might despise your actions, but who am I to say you're wrong if there is no provably right or wrong way to live your life?
First  Prev  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.