50989 cr points
Send Message:   M / N.C.
 Offline
|
I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not terribly difficult and it happens all the time. You can find videos on youtube on how to do it, and criminals and gun nuts do it all the time, so it's not that daunting a task. There shouldn't even be a license for owning anything fully automatic. Unless you are actively serving in the military there is absolutely no need for one...
|
50989 cr points
Send Message: M / N.C.
Offline
|
I have a solution. Eliminate guns and bring back the days of the sword. I bet if you had to actually take a life with your own hands and look into someones eyes as you took their life there would be a lot less murders. Guns give people a false sense of empowerment. If the shit goes down I'm grabbing my camel back, my katana, and my speed skates. What are you gonna do when you run out of ammo?
|
310 cr points
Send Message: 18 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide jer5500 wrote:
Pi3volution wrote:
People should not be allowed to own guns. Having guns for protection is great and all but the downside to owning a gun is far greater than the upside. If you think about the flat opportunity cost of the two options, it is something like this:
Allowed to own guns:
Pro:
self-protection = saving a couple person from potential criminals if actions are carefully executed
Con:
Anyone at anytime has the ability to commit a mass-murder = many people could die in matters of seconds, without time to protect themselves
Not allowed to own guns:
Pro:
much less destructive weapons = easier to protect yourselves since you or another person could handle the situation more efficiently
Con:
the danger of not being able to protect yourself well enough
Comparing the two options, does it not seem much safer to not own any guns as supposed to being able to own guns?
Guns are able to take down thousands of people in a blink of the eye; other weapons (swords, for example) are not able to inflict as much damage as guns. With one bullet, you could be dead, no matter how many people try to stop a gunman, it would be difficult and cost many lives. However, if it is not a "one shot, one kill" kind of weaponry with enough bullets to easily kill 10 people either way, control of this weapon is much greater. If someone were to rob a store with a sword, there are many objects nearby that could be used to save yourselves, such as throwing chairs, bottles, etc.
Watch these epic clips ^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGVB95Hq72o
If you have different insights into this, please do explain 
EDIT: Oh, if you are arguing that guns are still able to be obtained illegally otherwise, then we might as well agree that there is no hope for humanity or anything at all. There are always many unexpected alternatives to solutions but we must still hold hope for those solutions because that is the best we can do. We have laws in this world but there are still criminals who break them, yet we still keep those laws. Why? They are guidelines to how a peaceful world should be. Same with the debate of guns. We all know there will always be rulebreakers but once you set guidelines, it will become easier to control the amount of rulebreakers in our society. That's how laws work.
that is how the law system should work in theory making guidelines and the majority of the people to follow, leaving a minority of criminals and deterring more from becoming a criminal.
but the real world does not work that way.
look at the crime statistics of countries with high gun ownership. they have the lowest rates. why? because everyone mostly has a weapon with them or in their home. criminals know this and they know that if they try to break into a house they run the risk of being shot at or killed by the owners. so basically the more guns people own the safer the society becomes. now you can hide in your own world (bubble) thinking having a gun leads to more problems than they are worth. but stop and think your pro's and Con's are just the tip of the iceberg. owning a gun and knowing how to use it. is much better than not having one and needing it someday. people should be educated in how to handle a gun, how to maintain it and how to shoot/ kill a perpetrator. and to get a license you need to show that you can handle a gun. most criminals can't even handle their guns. i know first hand.
i've have had an experience were a dumb ass tried to mug me with a gun with the safety on.
not to mention the way he was holding the gun would have blown his hand first before he even got a shot at me.
btw my city is one of the safest cities in the world despite neighboring the most dangerous city in the world.
Federal laws prevent drug users and felons from lawful ownership of guns (http://www.ehow.com/list_6891578_laws-convicted-felons-possessing-weapon...). So its more a matter of enforcing already existing laws than passing new, stricter laws.
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/crime-vs-gun-ownership
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide What are the Gun Laws in Texas?
A Synopsis of State Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms
From NRAILA
See More About:state gun lawstexas law
Texas Gun Laws (As of January, 2008)
State Requirements
Rifles and Shotguns
Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.
Handguns
Permit to purchase handgun? No.
Registration of handguns? No.
Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
Permit to carry handguns? Yes.
Caution: This summary is meant for general purposes only. Firearm laws frequently change.
Purchase
A Texas resident, if not otherwise precluded by law, may purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states.
It is unlawful to sell, rent, loan or give a handgun to any person if it is known that the person intends to use it unlawfully.
It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian.
It is unlawful to knowingly or recklessly sell any firearm or ammunition to any person who is intoxicated.
Possession
No state license is required to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
There are restrictions on possession by a person:
Convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor involving the person’s family or household.
Or subject to certain orders issued under the Family Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.
Carry
A person commits an offense of unlawfully carrying a weapon if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun on or about his or her person unless the person is on one’s own premise or premises under the person’s control or inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.
It is unlawful to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carry on or about one’s person a handgun in a motor vehicle if the handgun is in plain view or the person is engaged in criminal activity (other than a misdemeanor traffic violation), prohibited by law from possessing a firearm or is a member of a street gang.
A person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun must apply by obtaining a request for application materials from a handgun dealer, the Department of Public Safety, or any other person approved by the department.
The Department of Public Safety shall review all applications materials and make a preliminary determination as to whether or not the individual is qualified to receive a handgun license.
The Department will forward application materials to qualified applicants, or send written notification with the reasons that that the preliminary review indicates the individual is not qualified to receive a license.
On receipt of the application materials a criminal history record check is conducted by the Department of Public Safety. The Department must issue or deny the license within 60 days of receipt of the completed application.
The Department must be notified within 30 days of a name or address change.
A new license expires on the first birthday of the license holder occurring after the fourth anniversary of the date of issuance.
A renewed license expires on the license holder’s birthday, five years after the date of expiration of the previous license.
The applicant must submit:
A completed application form.
Two Recent Color Passport Photographs.
Fingerprints.
Proof of age (at least 21).
Proof of residency in Texas.
A handgun proficiency certificate from a qualified handgun instructor.
An affidavit stating that applicant has read and understands the law concerning a license to carry and the laws on use of deadly force and that the applicant fulfills all eligibility requirements.
And an authorization to access records.
The Department shall issue a license to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant if the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements and submits all the application materials.
Eligibility requirements include no record of felonies, certain misdemeanors, addictions, mental illness or delinquency in child support payments or tax payments.
A person applying for a concealed carry license must successfully complete both the classroom and range components of the handgun proficiency course to receive a handgun proficiency certificate.
The handgun proficiency certificate must be no more than two years old and shall specify if it is valid for a revolver or semi-auto pistol based on the proficiency certificate.
The Department will issue a license to carry only for the categories of firearms listed on the handgun proficiency certificate. A person who is renewing a license to carry a concealed handgun must renew their handgun proficiency certificate.
The Department of Public Safety by rule shall establish a procedure for a person who is a legal resident of a state that does not provide for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun, to obtain a Texas license.
A non-resident applicant is required to pay a fee for the criminal history record check and investigation. Such permits remain valid until expiration and can be renewed until the other state issues a license recognized as a valid license in Texas.
It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun on the premises of:
A government court.
A business that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption.
A school or educational institution, high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event that is taking place.
A hospital or nursing home.
An amusement park.
A place of religious worship.
A polling place on the day of an election.
A meeting of a governing body.
A race track.
A secured area of an airport.
A correctional facility.
A correctional facility or within 1000 feet of such, on the day of an execution.
The property of another after receiving notice that concealed handguns are forbidden on that property.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a penal institution.
It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun while intoxicated.
It is unlawful for a handgun license holder to carry a handgun and intentionally fail to conceal the handgun.
Sources: Tex. Penal Code § 46.01 et seq. and Tex. Gov’t. Code § 411.171 et seq.
and yes at this rate there is no hope for humanity
I don't think you can really judge whether a place has lower crime rates due to gun ownership. It is not the only factor affecting crimes because there will always be crime with or without guns. I personally live in New Jersey and I believe that the crime rate is lower due to the fact that there's not much going on in this state. What I mean is that the location matters more, like what kind of environment people are living in as well as many other factors people are exposed to. It is very quiet and peaceful where I live so as a result, there is less crime. I once read a small excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point . Gladwell suggests that "The Power of Context" is influential in people's decision making. The Power of Context is basically the influence by the immediate environment around an individual. Gladwell uses the example of the NY subway system which used to be full of crime and filled with graffiti and trash. After a complete revision to eliminate farebeating and to prevent reoccurring graffiti, crime rate at the subways decreased as a result. This is showing that the immediate environment has a large impact on the way people act. So if you grow up in a bad neighborhood, of course you would be more prone to committing crimes like the majority. You cannot solely believe that higher gun ownership is the only factor in affecting crime rate when the environment is a much more influential factor.
Now, if no one were allowed to have a gun, then gun wouldn't be as big of a problem. Besides, anyone with a clean history could easily have experienced a traumatic event and starts going on a killing spree after buying a gun with no problem. Why do you want to kill a perpetrator? Even for self-defense, first thing you think about isn't to kill the person but to keep yourself alive right? As humans, we just shouldn't think about killing all the time. I know it's impossible. But isn't basically everything in the civil world theory-driven? You cannot expect anyone to follow the rules but we still need to spell out the rules just for the hopes. Government intervention into the free market is supposed to prevent trusts and monopolies right? Yet there are always loopholes, always powerful people who finds way around the rules. However, there is still the duty to do our best to keep these theories working toward 100%.
|
607 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Los Angeles, Ca
Offline
|
Sulla wrote:
Should people own guns for protection?
Should be carry guns on their person either in the open or secret?
I say yes they should own guns for protection and carry guns in the open, but not conceiled guns without permits.
Gun permit for guns in the open should be easy to get. People should get greater time if they shoot others with their gun out of anger or unjustified fear.
Of course we should be able to own guns, whether it be for protection, sport, or collection; it is our right. Although, military-style guns should only be available through licensed dealers followed by a mandatory in-class session(s) and a psychological evaluation.
|
3744 cr points
Send Message: 25 / M / St Louis Mo
Offline
|
when ever I hear people talk about eliminating all guns i think of this skit it just make me laugh oh nieve some people are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQcnE5lnPxg |
310 cr points
Send Message: 18 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
|
DAN213 wrote:
Sulla wrote:
Should people own guns for protection?
Should be carry guns on their person either in the open or secret?
I say yes they should own guns for protection and carry guns in the open, but not conceiled guns without permits.
Gun permit for guns in the open should be easy to get. People should get greater time if they shoot others with their gun out of anger or unjustified fear.
Of course we should be able to own guns, whether it be for protection, sport, or collection; it is our right. Although, military-style guns should only be available through licensed dealers followed by a mandatory in-class session(s) and a psychological evaluation.
IMO psychological evaluations will never work unless you can fully analyze how an individual responds to different events. Let's face it, shit happens, emotions get ahead of morals. There will always be cases people cannot handle.
|
310 cr points
Send Message: 18 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
|
that's the saying everyone is naive for opting for a crime-free world by creating laws that prevent crimes.
"There will always be criminals, so what's the point of laws?" <- exactly what you are inferring
|
2734 cr points
Send Message: 19 / M / Connecticut, USA
 Online
|
A world without guns will never exist.
|
50989 cr points
Send Message: M / N.C.
Offline
|
True. They will never go away. Not when humans practice war and murder like we have for thousands of years. Only a truly world changing event may change that, but sadly we're just hard-wired for violence, and biological evolution is just too slow to make a difference.We need cultural evolution to even stand a chance of breaking this viscous cycle of bigotry, violence, and hate. Maybe Psycho Pass doesn't seem like such a bad future after all...
|
607 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Los Angeles, Ca
Offline
|
Pi3volution wrote:
DAN213 wrote:
Sulla wrote:
Should people own guns for protection?
Should be carry guns on their person either in the open or secret?
I say yes they should own guns for protection and carry guns in the open, but not conceiled guns without permits.
Gun permit for guns in the open should be easy to get. People should get greater time if they shoot others with their gun out of anger or unjustified fear.
Of course we should be able to own guns, whether it be for protection, sport, or collection; it is our right. Although, military-style guns should only be available through licensed dealers followed by a mandatory in-class session(s) and a psychological evaluation.
IMO psychological evaluations will never work unless you can fully analyze how an individual responds to different events. Let's face it, shit happens, emotions get ahead of morals. There will always be cases people cannot handle.
I agree, a psychological evaluation will not be 100% effective, but it's a preventative measure that should be common-sense. Take for example in California, if you are under the age of 21 you are mandated to complete 16hrs. of in-class and field training on how to ride safely and pass a written/ riding test in order to receive you're motorcycle license. Of course, by completing this, you are not immune to future accidents whether it be you're fault or not , it is a preventative measure to help decrease future accidents.
|
3446 cr points
Send Message: 17 / M
Online
|
This is a very political topic, but to state my opinion without delving into my political views, I'm going to say it from a logical standpoint.
Yes, people should own them, especially for self-defense.
Some argue that guns kill people, but that's not true. I know plenty of people who own guns that are perfectly normal. Regardless of the method, people will kill people. I like my fists personally, always have them on me and they never run out of ammo ;)
On the topic of self-defense, if you have the gun visibly on your person (with a license) it should be fine. I've heard of crimes (in states where gun-toting is encouraged) being stopped because someone came in shooting people so the others pulled out theirs and shot back.
If you take guns from citizens, the criminals will be the only ones left with guns on them. Don't believe me? Bring me a felon charged with shootings who adheres to gun laws then. That's why it's a felony most of the time, because guns (or deadly force) is involved.
Plus, they're loads of fun to take to the shooting gallery, or to take hunting (if you have a license). They do have practical uses beyond violence.
Hope that answered it clearly. I tried to state things from an unbiased viewpoint, since I can see both sides of the argument.
|
3067 cr points
Send Message: 19 / M / Olympia
Offline
|
Whether its yes or no there will never be an agreement between two sides. Instead of finding a solution, people result to hate towards the opposing side. Guns would be fine if every owner was responsible and had basic knowledge of a firearm. Where is a Tree of Genesis when you need it? Maybe a bit too extreme.
|
3032 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
that's the saying everyone is naive for opting for a crime-free world by creating laws that prevent crimes.
"There will always be criminals, so what's the point of laws?" <- exactly what you are inferring
What is the point of a law who's target doesn't follow the law anyway.
I mean the complaint isn't against legal gun use. It's against those using them illegally (aka murder).
If someone's already determined to go on a killing spree do you really think that he's going to suddenly stop because guns are illegal?
It's one thing to make a law against a reckless behavior that you want law abiding citizens to stop such as talking on a cell phone while driving, but it's pointless to make a law to try to make a lawbreaker avoid an action when he's already planning on breaking ove of those very laws in the first place.
|
50989 cr points
Send Message: M / N.C.
Offline
|
It has to due with the availability of guns. People in other countries don't have the ridiculously easy access to firearms we have here in the states. That's way there are far far less gun related deaths in other countries...
|
24872 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Living Life
Offline
|
i say yes we all need our form of protection just becaue some bad eggs misuse them does not mean we should be with out that some can pick up so easily that will only leave the cops and military with weapons and we all know SOMEONE in there will be a bad egg to give those weapons to someone who should not have it that is why outlawing guns will never happen
|
Post Reply
Should people be allowed to own guns? 
