First  Prev  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
314 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
Posted 1/25/13

ksiri wrote:


Pi3volution wrote:


ksiri wrote:



Well first of all, my last point wasn't directed at you. Liberty just shouldn't be brought into the arguments here because obviously no one can have full liberty; else everyone would just go on rampage. Gov't will always restrict how much liberty we really get.

I'm not branding gun owners as potential criminals either. All I'm saying is, as the user somewhere above said, without a gun circulating around, it is easier to control the amount of violence. And I was just trying to stop people from branding themselves as pure innocent gun owners who have nothing to do with the criminals that go around shooting people. I am saying anyone has the potential to turn into a criminal but having a gun makes it more dangerous to society as whole. NOT saying gun owners ARE the only potential criminals as anyone is just as guilty. Again, it is just much safer when there's no gun around; theoretically, no one will be able to go on mass shootings as easily without a gun, and no one will be able to steal a gun from a neighbor or parents to conduct such shootings.


From a theoretical standpoint I agree with you. No guns means no gun crime. If only that were the end of the argument. If we were talking theory then removing the instrument used in crimes or murders means such crimes or murders involving said tool cease to exist.

But reality is more complex then that. If you're ultimate goal is to reduce "gun" violence then yes eliminating or reducing the number of guns will serve that purpose. But the story doesn't end there. Do you want less "violence" and crime in general? That's even more difficult to address. It's also not easy to draw ready comparisons between disarmed nations and our own because the stats can vary wildly. For instance, Thailand has no gun ownership but higher rate of gun crime than us. Japan has virtually no gun violence when compared to ours. But you have the UK which has 3.5 times the violent crime rate than us but lower gun crime rate because surprise, there are no guns. So it's a lofty and honorable goal to reduce the number of "deaths" due to guns, but I've seen little data to prove that less guns means we are less safe from violent crime.

Plus you have to examine the practical standpoint of how to disarm a nation where there is close to one gun for every man, woman and child in this nation. And not all are going to disarm willingly. Believe me. Short of a foreign power occupying us and FORCING us to disarm like we made Japan and Europe do, this is going to be an expensive and incredibly difficult job to accomplish even just from a logistical standpoint.

So while I understand the position of "let's get rid of all the guns so all the murders will stop", I don't think it's rooted in reality. I think some measures need to be taken to regulate guns, yes more than we currently have now. But I also think more energy needs to be spent in looking at violent crime as a whole and to look at root causes. Like in medicine, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (and as Doctor I can tell you we don't cure anything....we treat )


Yea I totally understand and agree. Laws only work theoretically because there will always be lawbreakers.
And people always tell me Chinese medicine work better in solving the root cause rather than mostly treating the abnormal processes xD
w6loy 
33605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / by the beach in S...
Offline
Posted 1/25/13
If it were not guns it would be knives. I do believe that you need to be trained to be safe with any tool. Do we train for safe use of a car, boat, moble crane, punch press, fork lift or welding equpitment? Yes we do and a gun should be the same way.
eldos1 
64104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33
Offline
Posted 1/25/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0
One of the best I have seen on magazine ban.
709 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Sweden
Offline
Posted 1/25/13
Hell no! if guns are not as easy to have access to, there would simply be less deaths.
18212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Texas
Online
Posted 1/25/13

NintendoFan05 wrote:

If your a police or part of the FBI, Yes. everyone else, No because it's a possibility that
certain people around will commit crime or murder, and most of us seen these things on
the news. It's sad.


yes because clearly no one in any government ever has ever murdered anyone - ahhh never mind i forgot about the 260 million people killed by Democide last century.
30088 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/13
You do if you are like me and live near the mexican border
58132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 1/25/13 , edited 1/25/13
Guns make violent crime easier and more lethal, they cause more trouble than they're worth.

I'm glad to be Australian.
15013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / walking along a l...
Offline
Posted 1/28/13

koji8123 wrote:


joshrl wrote:


koji8123 wrote:


joshrl wrote:


koji8123 wrote:

Not only is it a constitutional right. It gives you the freedom to protect yourself, freedom to hunt your own game, and last and most important the freedom to fight the government if you believe they are reigning with tyranny.


Please dont say this bullshit about protect yourself. If I wanted to kill you with a gun. Id should you before you saw it coming, you would have no time to pull a gun out and shoot me, you would be dead on the floor. Guns dont protect you they just help you kill. Yes someone could then shoot your killer but your dead, it didnt protect you, it just help get your revenge.


I don't think you understand gun use age very well. Ideally if you have a firearm for self protection you conceal it and use it when you feel you or another human beings' life is in danger of an immediate threat. Then you stop the threat. If you specifically targeted someone for murder. Chances are you're right. You'd be able to kill them before they had the reaction to stop you from achieving your goal. But think. What if EVERY ONE (who isn't a criminal or mentally wronged) was carrying or concealed. Like you said. After the murdered victim is felled another could protect themselves and others against the new criminal threat.

And as I stated before. The government can also be a threat if they strip you of your freedoms. Hopefully no one would have to murder, but it's unlikely that a corrupt power would restore rights if it has evil intentions. Guns often do not kill people without users' intent.


Guns kill, yes idiot behind the gun kills, but take away the weapon, you make it harder for that idiot to kill someone. Your idea of freedoms. You seriously think you are free. Your not free what ever little sense of freedom you have is just an illusion, government control you :P. Now lets talk serious unless your saying you have freedom to carry a weapon of murder. Im bored of listening to american conspiracy.

More then half american shootings in last 10 years, the shooter got there guns legally. Guns are for war not for a civilian. You want the right to kill someone go join the army. Honestly you think america would have learn after each shooting they just forget and let it happen again. Your suppose to learn from history. Your gun lobby is pretty much pure evil, one of the strongest lobby in america. Stop giving excuse its your right, no one has right to hold a weapon of murder, guns are made to kill not to defend.


Guns were made on accident and first used to kill for food since it was better than bow and arrow. It just happened to be easier to kill human life as well. The second amendment was made for defense, not for murder. A Government gets it's power from it's people. But people give in to easily, which is why freedoms are stripped away. Guns are for civilians.


You realize that law was made when native american where still a threat to your country. Its the modern day stop living in past, that law is out of date and should be changed. and please learn guns where invented to kill, gunpowder was invented for medicine, but it was taken by army and used for weapons. aka guns made for war to kill. I cant care less about american conspiracy. If u seriously think u should have guns please go tell that to families who lost there children in the school shooting. You government has control of u no matter what, countries brainwash its population, to say u have any freedom is bull shit. seriously u follow rules, u pay taxes u dont have freedom, u follow in line like everyone else. so your gun is just a tiny little freedom u see. honestly gun is a weapon or war, invented for war. u have no right to take weapon of war. and no gun were used for war before hunting,
2699 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / sleep
Offline
Posted 1/28/13 , edited 1/28/13
There is possibly no way to answer this questions other than expressing your opinion. Ah, yes. First of all when the founders created the constitution of American they knew that it wasn't perfect, they also knew that it can't be perfect, and it never will be perfect.

Similar to the constitution, the gun law cannot be perfect, therefore the debate regarding the gun laws will continue to exist. Believe it or not, the tax payers all over united are subsidizing the gun industry. And in reality not many are even aware of it.


For the Question: i say no. They are weapons of mass destruction and should not be allowed to exist, even though they can be used for positive motives. Sadly, this will never happen though (for the current era).
537 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 1/30/13
Depends on the purpose.

Our ancestors have held weapons, for whatever intents and purposes, there has been blood drawn by someone in our bloodline and predecessors.

Militarily yes and no. Firearms have really made human conflict into high casualty dehumanized slaughter with little to no compunction, little regard or respect to the enemy, it's this en masse killing that detracts the perceived value of human life, but explosives do the same (we're not talking about that though). Yet I suppose firearms provide a more humane and less psychologically impacting method, think of the current number of veterans with PTSD or mental problems and multiply it maybe threefold, I surmise that to be resultant if warfare were to use swords or polearms, that said there is yet to include the grievous injuries such as having an extremity severed, which in war is psychological daunting. From a logistical and resource approach the adoption of melee weapons is also inefficient there would have to be more allocation of time, training, and material to the single individual to hone their skill, also think of the additional amount of time and resources needed to extract and appropriate metal and forge weapons, there's a reason spears, halberds and other polearms were so prolific, they were comparatively cheaper than swords and had the advantage of reach.

Civilian wise, I would have to say yes. Not only for the possibility and unlikelihood of overthrowing a regime, but the inevitability of malcontents, troublemakers, and high risk individuals. It's commonly said that the criminal fears an armed victim, but what if that victim were rushing at you sword in hand or what if the victim were so physically inept to handle the weapon properly (you'd be surprised at how much of the population has ever handled either, sword or firearm; even in the United States alone) there would be a disadvantage, firearms equalize the players on the playing field. People have a right to live, and what good is that right if you cannot defend yourself or others in peril, it is forfeit. I'm not going to justify the 2nd Amendment with a deluded argumentative points that arms are for also for sport and hunting, because originally they were for organized militia in defense of the state, but I would've added also the people's right to rebellion if they see the government as having failed to uphold social contract and prioritize the well being of the people.

Unfortunately there is always going to be the few individuals that abuse that privilege for ill intents. Though that would be more of a social problem based on how the society is structured, where I would think that these at risk individuals are proportionately higher in individualistic society than collective, I won't elaborate or digress.

There is in no way a direct answer, but I'll say this, I'd anticipate and be more cautionary in the presence of people more than I would a firearm.
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 1/30/13

quirriff wrote:

Guns make violent crime easier and more lethal, they cause more trouble than they're worth.

I'm glad to be Australian.


But more guns don't equal more violent crime. America is #1 in gun ownership but we're like 29th when it comes to violent crime.
25695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Universe :0
Offline
Posted 6/26/13
Yes we should.

Conceal, I guess.
46128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 6/26/13
Yes they should.Guns dont kill people.People do.

This picture pretty much sums it up

19325 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 6/26/13
I'd be pissed if we had to give up guns. I've got a lot of money invested! My sniper rifle is worth around $3K by itself.
Posted 6/26/13 , edited 6/26/13
Nyeah


I would invent a robot gun that would kill him upon saying that.
First  Prev  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.