First  Prev  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
14217 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/5/13 , edited 1/6/13
Should people be allowed to own baseball bats? Kitchen knives?... etc.
42057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/6/13

Shizzx wrote:

Should people be allowed to own baseball bats? Kitchen knives?... etc.


The more apt comparison is crossbows, bows and arrows, swords, spears, throwing stars, etc.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/6/13 , edited 1/6/13

Shizzx wrote:

Should people be allowed to own baseball bats? Kitchen knives?... etc.


A kitchen knife isn't much threat from a clock tower. A bullied kid can't take out his whole high school and the jocks he hates with baseball bat.
sorry. Firearms occupy a different level of risk and threat. This argument doesn't carry any water.


15026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/6/13
A gun ban honestly is complete wait of time. There are enough guns in circulation in the US that every person over the age of 8 could own one. Gang bangers and thugs can easily acquire a firearm just as easy as getting as pack of cigarettes. If you want to make an impact on shooting then the items you need to limit is the item you feed to the object in question. In this case that would be the bullets. Firearms are reusable while the bullets are not (brass yes, bullets NO). You simply tax the crap out of complete bullets and reloading supplies to a point where they become extremely expensive (as if there not already there). If you make it where most gang bangers can’t easily afford to feed their little friend then their dependence on firearms will drop and as a result so will the need for the so call "hero" person to carry a firearm for protection.
On the bad side this will also cause problems for hunters and that the entire industry will have issues, and sales on real tree camo will plummet, and the deer will over populate and die off from chronic wasting disease. As a hunter education instructor and ecologist I understand the issues that concern hunting and animal population. As a holder of a conceal carry license I understand what it means to carry a firearm. As former Army I know what it means to kill someone.
Gun design and capabilities probably have exceeded their need but then again technology will always progress. I have a belief that the Founding Fathers had a very important reason following a bloody war to free themselves from a government that was oppressive for making the second amendment to the constitution. They made the right to bare arm second only to free speech for a reason. This government was formed around checks and balance between all branches of government. All branches can oversee all other branches to insure that the population is being treated appropriately. Being that this country is a government by the people for the people does it not make since that the people as well are a branch of government. Yes they can vote but a lot can happen in four years. According to the US constitution Firearms are necessary to maintain a solid foundation for the people to govern themselves effectively. If the colonies did not have firearms then we would be paying more attention to what is going on in England today.
I think I have stayed far from the original intent of this post. And you all think I some crazy nut case I’ll try to get back on track. The constitution says you have a right to bear arms. It does not say it has to be cheap. Tax the crap out of ammo, ear mark all of those tax for some wonderful holier than thou purpose that no one in their right mind could argue (yes I know it probably won’t really go there, but we could hope) Say helping returning vets with post traumatic stress, or families of shooting victims, so on and so forth.
Yes if I can’t feed my firearm then it will eventually become a rather large paperweight, but it will be a pretty one!!!
49288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/6/13
The younguns here don't seem to understand WHY guns and weapons are necessary.

The US constitution's second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

First, the constitution does not give anyone any rights. RIGHTS cannot be given, they must be taken and enforced. To ASK for a right establishes a social hierarchy by the mere act of asking. To ask someone is to imply that they are superior in some way. If a thing can be given or taken, it is not a right, but a privilege. The US constitution is a contract in which we have agreed to MUTUALLY DEFEND certain rights for ourselves. To ensure my own freedom, I must defend the freedom of others; otherwise, I would be victim to any corruption that my countrymen would be victim to. It is the purpose of the US constitution to highlight that reality and create a social contract in which we all mutually fight to preserve eachother's rights. The constitution is a mutually beneficial contract between all citizens, not a God which grants liberties and privileges.

The freedom of speech, religion, and the press are ensured by the US constitution as well, and all for the same basic reason -- to prevent those on top from dictating policy in private life. When Napoleon conquered Europe, he regularly censored and even edited the news to make himself seem like the good guy. Hitler did the very same thing. Stalin did the same. Every dictator has. The freedom of the press is not an arbitrary thing, it is a PART OF THE GOVERNMENT which is used as an additional check-and-balance to prevent corruption. If the rights of the press are enforced, dirty politicians can't make backroom deals without being outed by honest journalists. The right to bear arms exists for the very same reason. It was the belief of the US founding fathers that a man had the right to forge his own future and with that right came the responsibility of protecting it. The US second amendment assures that individuals can be confident and secure in their actions because they are capable of defending themselves but also (and more importantly) assures that the government obeys they PEOPLE and not the other way around. Thomas Jefferson was actually a big advocate of revolution and believed that a revolution (by force) should occur every couple of decades.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunters. It has nothing to do with target shooting sportsman. The right of the PEOPLE to own AND CARRY (bear) arms is a means of POLITICAL CONTROL. It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for a free society.

Look to the soviet block countries of Romania, Czechoslovakia and the Ukraine. After WWII, the first thing the communists did was start a propaganda campaign against gun owners. The second thing they did was make everyone register guns. After all the guns were registered, the communists took them all away. Then, the communists distributed wealth, land, and resources as they saw fit. "Good" people wanted everyone to be equal and allowed all of this. Meanwhile, doctors, architects, engineers, teachers, and anyone who worked hard for their positions were thrown into bread lines and treated like garbage for being "elitists." I know people who were there. I have seen the faces scared by absolute "equality." I know surgeons who spent 6 hours a day in line to get their children bread because they had no means of doing for themselves in such a system.

The truth is that fairness is cruel. Fairness means that people are given equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal shares. In the real world, some people will get hurt, and that sucks -- but it also sucks to have everything you worked for taken away to feed trailer trash who never worked a day.

Citizens owning guns prevents that from happening. People looking after themselves and their families prevents that from happening. When mommy told you that "violence never solves anything" she was lying. It is best for rational people to make mutually beneficial arrangements and violence should be a last resort, but in the end "violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived." In order to maintain a just and free society, the common man, not the police or military, should have the greatest means to apply force.

So yes, every citizen and patriot not only should be allowed to, but SHOULD own, carry, and know how to properly use weaponry including firearms.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/6/13 , edited 1/6/13

Guardian_Bob wrote:



I actually do own one now, and haven't had to use it. It had a trigger lock within 48 hours of entering my home (my wife brought it up from the family farm down south.) It is a combination .22 rifle and 20 gauge shotgun. We've heard coyotes in the area but they seem to stay away.

I actually hope I never have to use it. That said I'd prefer to have it around rather than having a dead lamb or dead cow. We have only lived here a year; however, my neighbors have told me about a few times where they have seen coyotes running through their fields.

As for how often would I use a gun, it would be limited to actual animal attacks. If a coyote comes by but doesn't attack my animals, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.


That sounds like a good practical pest/predator control tool for a farmer.

here's my suggestion for a ban.

Ban detachable magazines, stripper clips, and speedloaders. all legal firearms must have an integeral magazine of no more than ten rounds and no way other than loose rounds to reload.

You'd still have practical tools and self defense armaments. But the odds of being able to do a massacre would be greatly reduced.


It's not ideal. I'm sure the paranoid can imagine situations where ten rounds is just NOT ENOUGH for their protection despite the fact that they've never had to fire so much as one round.

The M1 Garand would probably end up illegal, (I'm not sure how you could make the En-bloc clip WORK as an integral magazine)

Pump Shotguns and Lever carbines would still have a lot of firepower in the hands of trained user. and eventually perhaps they'd come under attack for the next round of Bans. (which is the principle reason for the NRA style hardline stance. No concession is ever good enough the 'no guns' crowd will always try to push for more. So.. why compromise?)

On the other hand. Classic and classy revolvers would probably see a marketing resurgence.... so it wouldn't be all bad.


15026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/6/13
have you ever been on the recieving end of a baseball bat, you can take out a lot of bullies with one, walk into a crowded hall and start swinging see what happens
65929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 1/6/13
The right to own arm is actuallyThe right to own arms is actually a pre existing right, not granted by, but recognized by the constitution. Guns don’t kill people – people do, is more than just a slogan. Mass killings in the U.S. actually peaked in the 1920s; it is only because of the media they seem so prominent today. Try living in Syria where something like 60 THOUSAND dead! Evil exists and no gun laws will keep criminals from getting and using guns – THEY love gun laws that disarm law abiding citizens (the only ones to obey gun laws). Guns save lives and reduce violence; what do you say to the woman whose ex is beating down the door with the intent to kill her? Wait for the police? The best way to reduce gun violence would be to make it easier to commit mentally unstable people; but even then, you just can’t stop all evil. Americans (especially their congressmen) should cure themselves of the “do something” disease. Israel as well as states with high gun ownership have lower levels of violence – fewer guns create more violence (Chicago?).
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/6/13

nagmyer wrote:

have you ever been on the recieving end of a baseball bat, you can take out a lot of bullies with one, walk into a crowded hall and start swinging see what happens


a lot less bloody and a lot less certain then if I took in a pump action shot gun.



49288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/6/13

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.


Do you realize that since the invention of modern weaponry, there have actually been FEWER deaths in warfare? Most modern militaries have adopted smaller, armor piercing ammunition. The reason for this is simple: killing an enemy removes one enemy from the battlefield. Wounding an enemy removes three (one wounded and two to carry him) from the battlefield. PLUS the dead tell no tails, but wounded troops demoralize an enemy. Wars in past centuries counted the dead in tens of thousands. Modern wars result in casualties which are a fraction of that. There were SINGLE BATTLES in WWII which caused more deaths than 10 years of the US being in Afghanistan.

Yes, the purpose of a weapon is to wound and kill. The better your weapon, the fewer enemies can stand against it and the fewer the number of people who ultimately die because of it. Would you rather go back to using swords and have 10,000 young people come back from Afghanistan missing legs and arms?
49288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/6/13
I have seen several comments about how guns take lives. Do you know how many people housecats kill every year (between the diseases they carry and the people they asphyxiate by sleeping on their faces)? Do you know how easy it is to smother someone with a pillow? I had a relative who was murdered in a bathtub-- all that happened was that someone grabbed and held her legs up so that she couldn't raise her head out of the water -- done.

Yes, it is the purpose of a weapon to take life. Life is not a safe thing and all life ultimately ends in death for everyone. The question is whose death and when. Ammonia and Bleach mixed can create a basic mustard gas. I can smother a sleeping person with a pillow. A broken mercury thermometer added to a nasal spray would do the trick. A blown-out pilot light and one gas stove could kill a household all silently. A person can be killed quite easily with a little trick, a little plastic, a tiny bit of poison, some gas, a bit of wood, or even a pillow.

Weapons don't kill any more than spoons make people fat. Evil people will do evil things with whatever resources are available. Guns are the great equalizer. A 5' woman is the equal of a 6'4" man in a fight if she has a gun. By eliminating guns you do not prevent evil, you only remove the tool which levels the playing field in favor of the meek.
42057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/6/13

dark_paradox_21 wrote:

I have seen several comments about how guns take lives. Do you know how many people housecats kill every year (between the diseases they carry and the people they asphyxiate by sleeping on their faces)? Do you know how easy it is to smother someone with a pillow? I had a relative who was murdered in a bathtub-- all that happened was that someone grabbed and held her legs up so that she couldn't raise her head out of the water -- done.

Yes, it is the purpose of a weapon to take life. Life is not a safe thing and all life ultimately ends in death for everyone. The question is whose death and when. Ammonia and Bleach mixed can create a basic mustard gas. I can smother a sleeping person with a pillow. A broken mercury thermometer added to a nasal spray would do the trick. A blown-out pilot light and one gas stove could kill a household all silently. A person can be killed quite easily with a little trick, a little plastic, a tiny bit of poison, some gas, a bit of wood, or even a pillow.

Weapons don't kill any more than spoons make people fat. Evil people will do evil things with whatever resources are available. Guns are the great equalizer. A 5' woman is the equal of a 6'4" man in a fight if she has a gun. By eliminating guns you do not prevent evil, you only remove the tool which levels the playing field in favor of the meek.


Again unless you can provide evidence, put up or shut up. What makes guns a great equalizer as compared to a cross bow or grenade? Do you have any stats or are you talking out of your a**?
19718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/6/13

dark_paradox_21 wrote:


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.


Do you realize that since the invention of modern weaponry, there have actually been FEWER deaths in warfare? Most modern militaries have adopted smaller, armor piercing ammunition. The reason for this is simple: killing an enemy removes one enemy from the battlefield. Wounding an enemy removes three (one wounded and two to carry him) from the battlefield. PLUS the dead tell no tails, but wounded troops demoralize an enemy. Wars in past centuries counted the dead in tens of thousands. Modern wars result in casualties which are a fraction of that. There were SINGLE BATTLES in WWII which caused more deaths than 10 years of the US being in Afghanistan.

Yes, the purpose of a weapon is to wound and kill. The better your weapon, the fewer enemies can stand against it and the fewer the number of people who ultimately die because of it. Would you rather go back to using swords and have 10,000 young people come back from Afghanistan missing legs and arms?


I do know there have been fewer deaths in war fare compared with the middle ages (man, those crusades were boring to learn about, though that may have been the teachers fault).

And I realise world peace is both fanciful and unlikely. (I also think the world would be better off if it wasn't so populated, because our world doesn't currently have the resources to sustain all of the people living on it in an equal level of comfort, but that is neither here nor there.)

At least you can run away from a sword. I just don't understand how developing something that is ultimately a better weapon helps out more people in the long run.
toxxin 
37071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / In my own little...
Offline
Posted 1/6/13
As a responsible gun owner myself I have to say yes. for the ones that own guns and take anti-psychotic drugs, ima have to say no... Blaming the weapon is the wrong thing to do but it happens all too often, its the cellphones fault for texting while driving, its McDonalds fault for selling fatty foods,etc, all in all people just dont want to accept any form of resonsibility for the actions they do.
69 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / If home is where...
Offline
Posted 1/6/13 , edited 1/6/13
Most of the arguments for and against gun control seem to ignore the fact that some people are just plain evil. It does not matter if you carry a concealed weapon if you cannot recognize the threat until they have already leveled theirs at your head, and I'd highly doubt anyone in such a situation was one of the around 100 people whose quick-draw could best a simple trigger pull. As far as weapons go, it does not matter which kind of gun it is: if you know how to use it, they are very lethal. Just because a .44 mag leaves a bigger hole than a derringer does not equate to it being significantly more lethal.

The number of rounds only makes it easier to dispatch numerous individuals, and honestly, even if you were the so-called "good guy with a gun" in the midst of a bank robbery, the odds of being able to stop it yourself are incredibly low, and the odds that you will get other civilians gravely injured is much, much greater. Even if there were several such "good guys," the coordination needed amongst largely untrained civilians is highly improbable to result in a successful halting of the bank robbery. There is this lovely quandry in the bad guys being altogether more prepared most of the time, evidenced by the number of them who bring body armor versus the frequency injured civilians were wearing it.

The second amendment is more to prevent invasion of property than to ensure individual security. That, in times of war or riot or other calamity, Americans are expected to rise up and defend their lands, to the death. That the American people may continue at the loss of the brave few who bore arms when others could not. To that end, I will never surrender my own firearms. I will keep them otherwise maintained in order that I may hunt and provide food for my family. I can do both of these things quite well with weapons that are not designed for combat, simply because I know how to use them extremely efficiently. People who insist that assault weapons are the only way to defend themselves lack the ability to do so regardless of how much heat they pack.
First  Prev  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.