What is your view on guns? I think that guns are completely fine as long as they are used for target shooting only. I think all automatic weapons should be able to be accessed the way automatic weapons manufactured before 1967 are in the US (weapons manufactured and registered before 1967 can be legally purchased by law abiding citizens that fill out proper documentation and pay a transfer fee [I believe it's around $250 extra]). I also think illegal purchasing of any weapon should be cut down on by all nations.GP's were awarded for this post, DOTW selection! - Finalage.
Pro Firearms vs Firearms Restrictions
Started by
Guest_ferretboy128
, Jul 06 2009 10:58 PM
22 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_valekdmog
Guest_valekdmog
-
- Guest
Posted 07 July 2009 - 06:36 PM
Guns=Good cuz theys goes booms!And they should be used for target shooting, war, and self defense.And types of arms should be divided by age and responsibility.Children that are irresponsible should get nerf guns and responsible ones should get .22's.Teens should get guns that fire their concentrated emotions at people, as they are too emotionally fragile to be given real firearms.Irresponsible adults should be limited to old ass guns like muskets and cap-n-ball revolvers, while responsible adults should be given whatever the hell they want.And the elderly get rocket launchers. 
#3
Guest_rokklobster
Guest_rokklobster
-
- Guest
Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:19 PM
if everyone had guns then peopel wouldnt be so stupid with them.for instance. if a guy attempted to rob a bank and everyone had guns that guy would be screwed!!!!the trick is that gun education must start early children must be "brainwashed" to understand the proper use of a gunnaturally of course convitcted felons who no longer have rights should not be allowed to have guns
#4
Guest_Eraendal
Guest_Eraendal
-
- Guest
Posted 11 July 2009 - 08:07 AM
The above replies heartened my faith in humanity.Gun control doesn't work, especially if it's to do with restricting illegal firearms usage. The only firearms that will be controlled are the ones that are legal and the ones that aren't will still be in the hands of criminals.
#5
sakred
-
- Member
-
- 74 posts
Hatchling
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 11 July 2009 - 09:27 PM
In the words of Chris Rock: The guns arent the things that need controlling, Its the bullets. 
just make bullets cost Thousands of dollars and you've solved your problem.
just make bullets cost Thousands of dollars and you've solved your problem.
#6
Guest_vingle135
Guest_vingle135
-
- Guest
Posted 25 July 2009 - 03:16 PM
Well, the way I think it is, wherever there are guns, there's problems.Let's face it, theres always going to be problems with guns, however we try to control it.We say only to use it as self-defense.More people are being murdered with guns.We ban guns.More guns are being smuggled and owned illegally each day.I personally think guns are VERY cool (Have you ever seen Halo?) its just not worth it sometimes.And controlling the bullets aren't the problem either.We'll probably never get rid of guns in this world.So, I think:If we can't get rid of guns, why can't we replace it with something slightly less dangerous? It should also cost less so it wouldn't drain the world of $50 Million Dollars each year.Thank you. 
#7
general__fondue
-
- Member
-
- 60 posts
Hatchling
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:13 PM
I'm entirely against guns being legal. If everyone has access to guns, then everybody will be able to kill people. The idea that you can use them for "Self-defence" is slightly marred by the fact that there would be less need to use "Self-defence" if they were illegal. And, for that matter, would we need to use a gun for self-protection anyway? Unard combat would be more than sufficient and can be learned easily.So, I'm anti-guns.
#8
Guest_apotheosis
Guest_apotheosis
-
- Guest
Posted 06 August 2009 - 01:03 AM
well you dont need a gun to kill someone ,you can with a knife..should we ban knives too?how about ropes cause you can hang people with them.or pencils cause you can stab people in the eye with them.or water you can drown people we dont want people being drowned.. lets ban watermr vingle, people didnt just start dying when guns were created.Human history is a bloody one. guns were only in existence for the past couple hundred (if even) years.People have been murdering, and going to war far before guns were in existence
#9
rocky19
-
- Active Member
-
- 245 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 5
Neutral
Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:14 AM
Your argument does not make much sense. First off, the gun is far-distanced and doesn't have much use except for self defense and hunting. Second, anything can be used to kill people. However, the gun is used most often to kill people. While it is true that human history has been bloody, lets not forget that there is also prosperity and peace as well in human history.well you dont need a gun to kill someone ,you can with a knife..should we ban knives too?how about ropes cause you can hang people with them.or pencils cause you can stab people in the eye with them.or water you can drown people we dont want people being drowned.. lets ban watermr vingle, people didnt just start dying when guns were created.Human history is a bloody one. guns were only in existence for the past couple hundred (if even) years.People have been murdering, and going to war far before guns were in existence
"I wish I am faster..."
#10
Guest_Impkd
Guest_Impkd
-
- Guest
Posted 06 August 2009 - 10:34 AM
I'm pro gun but i think they need to be a bit harder to get but still saying guns kill people is like saying pencils write essays or saws cut wood YOU have to be the one controlling it, its not the guns fault there's a bunch of A-holes out there's misusing them
#11
Guest_Queen of omni Tribe
Guest_Queen of omni Tribe
-
- Guest
Posted 20 March 2010 - 05:25 AM
Guns are easily handed out in today's society and if you have no record of a crime, illness and you seem sane enough to have a gun i'm all for it. the fact that regulation should be affecting the guns that fall out of the system and that's no easy task but i am mostly pro firearms.
#12
Guest_G3force
Guest_G3force
-
- Guest
Posted 20 March 2010 - 08:58 PM
So your saying we should have m16's and m60's? They are both made in the sixties... And the m16 can nail two unarmored guys in one shot. If you are saying that we need armored vests, than no thankee mate. The m60 can output 200 rounds per clip. It is a heavy support weapon.I am all against firearms.http://en.wikipedia....6_rifle#HistoryWhat is your view on guns? I think that guns are completely fine as long as they are used for target shooting only. I think all automatic weapons should be able to be accessed the way automatic weapons manufactured before 1967 are in the US (weapons manufactured and registered before 1967 can be legally purchased by law abiding citizens that fill out proper documentation and pay a transfer fee [I believe it's around $250 extra]). I also think illegal purchasing of any weapon should be cut down on by all nations.
#13
Guest_Nonlocalized Link
Guest_Nonlocalized Link
-
- Guest
Posted 20 March 2010 - 10:53 PM
First of all, let's establish what a gun is for.Self-defence? Not in your home, that's for sure. A lot of "gun nuts" have the impression they can pull a John Wayne and gun down someone else already holding a gun. This is not reality. If someone breaks into your house and has a gun, he will see you as a threat, probably gun you down (considering most people aren't permanently "on guard" for a home intrusion), and take your gun to sell illegally to someone else. On the streets, maybe, if you're more than 10 yards away from them, and they don't already have a gun pointed at you. You can't pull and shoot someone who has a gun on you, it just doesn't work that way. Let's also remember that there is no guarantee that a bullet you fire stops in your assailant, or in your wall, for that matter. Even if you do save yourself by shooting someone, there is a chance that very bullet will kill or hurt an innocent person, rendering weapons for "self defence" as very risky.Hunting? Yes. Lots of people go hunting, and hunting rifles aren't really a threat to anyone provided they are registered, and its user has training. Handguns are more dangerous (as they can be concealed if stolen, making them good for criminal activities).Recreational shooting? You wouldn't need to keep a gun in your home or on your person for this, as to my knowledge, most ranges offer some kind of secure storage for firearms. In any case you would not object to being registered and trained in the weapon's use if this is your intention.Assault weapons (by my definition, weapons that are automatic, have a clip size larger than 15, or can easily penetrate kevlar) are not necessary for any activity, and if you need one for "fun", you can keep it stored securely at your range, and have no need to have it on your own property or in your vehicle.
#14
Guest_Grevik
Guest_Grevik
-
- Guest
Posted 21 March 2010 - 01:19 PM
Living in the UK i really dont know that many people who have access to firearms and it seems that most of the violent crime that i do hear about in this country is more related to knife crime. If guns are a bad idea or not i would say that if the public were denied firearms then they would just find the next weapon to kill each other or feel protected, as in the UK's case. To sum it up i would say im anti-gun but have no better sollution to offer.
Edited by Grevik, 21 March 2010 - 01:20 PM.
#15
Guest_{VFA-131}West
Guest_{VFA-131}West
-
- Guest
Posted 25 March 2010 - 05:01 AM
i can totally see your point, BUT there is also the fact that the primary purpose (or more like the SOLE purpose) of a gun is to KILL. knives, swords, pencils, all have uses outside violence, which is why they are socially acceptable. however despite my statement, I'm pro-gun rights. it should not be up to our government to control ANYTHING we own unless they are spending tax money on it (which is why i don't scream my head off about the government regulating automobiles, they spend tax money to make roads so we can drive them) does the government pay for anything to do with guns? does the government build shooting ranges? (okay maybe they do, i don't really know, but i know there are private ranges) like any weapon, i think guns need to have intelligent regulations on them, but as for keeping anyone from buying them, i think its a violation of the 2nd amendment.i must also touch on my only reason for not supporting this, which is actually mentioned in the first half, the Second Amendment."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." this states that the purpose for the amendment is to ensure we have someone to fight for the country may the need arise, it does not mention self defense. if (yes i repeat myself) it werent for the fact that i dont believe in the government regulating something they dont pay for, i would say this is a decent argument at least against the 2nd amendment, though it doesnt really constitute an argument for gun controlwell you dont need a gun to kill someone ,you can with a knife..should we ban knives too?how about ropes cause you can hang people with them.or pencils cause you can stab people in the eye with them.or water you can drown people we dont want people being drowned.. lets ban watermr vingle, people didnt just start dying when guns were created.Human history is a bloody one. guns were only in existence for the past couple hundred (if even) years.People have been murdering, and going to war far before guns were in existence
#16
Guest_Verdant
Guest_Verdant
-
- Guest
Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:10 PM
This is the short-sighted mentality college campuses across the nation seem to currently hold, as they attempt to become sovereign districts refusing the rights guaranteed by the states who fund them. Guns being illegal does not mean they disappear. Look at contraband drugs; people who want them still get them and still use them. Much more, people who want to use them for nefarious purposes are not going to be deterred by college campuses, which have no coherent, effective scanning system if they are of any size, who tell them they can't bring a gun on campus, while the law-abiding citizens who took their courses when they got their license to carry will have their hands tied.People who say "Yikes, guns!" are the people who never learned how to use one responsibly.I'm entirely against guns being legal. If everyone has access to guns, then everybody will be able to kill people. The idea that you can use them for "Self-defence" is slightly marred by the fact that there would be less need to use "Self-defence" if they were illegal. And, for that matter, would we need to use a gun for self-protection anyway? Unard combat would be more than sufficient and can be learned easily.So, I'm anti-guns.
#17
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:12 AM
You'd think that people in America would've learned from prohibition that banning a product only drives it underground and further increases crime. Making it more difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms only puts them at greater risk, and only serves as one less danger to a potential mugger, burglar, or worse. On a larger scale; traffickers and the black arms market will lose nothing except sleep from counting all their profits, which will go on to fund who-knows-what.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#18
Guest_Verdant
Guest_Verdant
-
- Guest
Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:18 AM
For sure, Semicolon-Underscore-Underscore-Underscore-Semicolon. It's not hard to grasp that banning something hardly takes it away from criminals; the result is that law-abiding, gun-responsible citizens give up their rights.And I just saw that Obama and Biden (a regular Cicero, he) are planning on prosecuting piracy further. Yaaaaaaay, big government.Ok, I'll add more. And I think this is worth another post. I'll compare the piracy tracking and prosecution to the supposed "Blair's Bill," named after a victim of a shooting on a bus, which proposes national registration of all gun-owners --- not just pistols --- complete with a costly licensing. Now, the name itself is a low attempt a pathos, a really low move: there's no reason to believe Blair Holt couldn't have been killed by an unlicensed carrier of an unregistered weapon. Beyond that, it's simply another expensive bureaucracy, an expansion of government, which deters people from constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Oh sure, you have the right to bear arms, but first you have to jump through these hoops AND the government has to know about it.A very strong force behind the 2nd Amendment is the fear citizens felt of behind oppressed by a despotic government. An armed, militarily-educated citizenry is one a government has respected, one a government has relied upon throughout history. A gun-shy, panicky citizenry is waiting to be taken advantage of. Furthermore, this kind of licensing and registration is like sex-offender registration. The current government would see gun-owners as threats, or at the very least, undesirables.
#19
Guest_stevegauch
Guest_stevegauch
-
- Guest
Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:14 AM
The problem with guns and other weapons are that, if you make one illegal, and people will just get the next easy thing to kill with. Collectors can still get permits depending on where they live to display weapons. Know the real deal that people hit on the head is we need to train people in understanding of firearms and possibly other tools that are used as weapons early on, so they know the risks, and know how to use one properly if the situation occurs where they need or have to deal with them [either holding them or on the receiving end of them]. This isn't 100% perfect memory due to time and such, but I think the county of Switzerland has laws and rules something like where men of age serve a year or so in the military, are allowed near/full ownership of any firearms. can't remember exactly mind you, but its supposed to have one of the lower crime rates too worldwide. can someone Confirm this? it may be a few years old what with terrorists and stuff making countries change laws left and right.
#20
Guest_john00007
Guest_john00007
-
- Guest
Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:41 PM
Firearms are a 2nd amendment right. Just because some politicians in Chicago want to ban guns because they have their heads up their butts doesn't mean they can TAKE AWAY the RIGHT for AMERICANS to bear arms. The federal judges sided against them obviously because they uphold the constitution. There is no argument. The constitution is not a "living and breathing" piece of paper either. Is your student loan "living and breathing"- I didn't think so... How about your car or house payments... can you change them at any point without repercussion? I didn't think so. The notion that a few people can change our very rights because they are in the mindset of "politically correct jackass" mode doesn't mean they can infringe on the rights of all Americans. Sure you can stop wearing a gun. It's something you on an individual basis can determine. But when people try to dictate to others what they can and can't do- then you have a problem. Thanks for your feedback.
#21
Guest_robinsod
Guest_robinsod
-
- Guest
Posted 11 July 2010 - 09:52 PM
I live in the UK too and the one thing i know for sure is that the easier access to guns is and the more peole have them then the greater the amount of gun crime. Any murder in the UK is still big news, for days on end. Is that true in the US? Unless it's a small town or the murder is a particularly horrible one (a child for example) or a famous person, a policeman etc then it hardly even makes the news. Most US cities aren't that much bigger than UK ones but the amount of crime and especially the amoun of gun crime is much much worse. Knife crimes increased a hell of a lot in the UK in the last 5 years. Why? Cos more people started to carry them so more people thought they needed to carry them 'just in case' someone else attacked them with one. Deaths from knife crime have therefore increased dramatically. If people did the same with guns then not only would gun crime increase but the actual death rate would increase massively simply because guns kill people much easier than knives do just as knives kill more people than a fist or a baseball bat.So the simple answer is the more guns you allow society to own the more people die. Our police force still don't routinely carry guns and i hope they never do. I've seen cops in the US open fire on people for the simplest of things. A lot of cops are trigger happy. That's why they join the force cos they get the chance to play god. The vast majority are good honest cops but unfortunately there's a lot of idiots too. There's also a lot of idiots who can't control themselves or have too much to drink. Let them use their fists and they wo't do that much damage most of the time. Give them knives and they'll seriously hurt a lot of people and kill a fair majority. Give them guns and more people will die than will walk away.So should guns be legalised for anything other than legal sports or target shooting? Never!
#22
Guest_poopsmithy
Guest_poopsmithy
-
- Guest
Posted 12 July 2010 - 05:34 AM
I really think that guns are an important tool that humans have created. However, as with any other tool in the wrong hands, they can be dangerous. Not to sound cliche, but Guns don't kill, people do. I didn't grow up with anything more than a BB gun in my house, but I love guns. I find shooting in designated firing ranges to be a great past time. My wife and i are having our first baby later this year, and a gun in the house, well locked in a gun safe, can help me provide an added measure of protection in my home. But I know the horror stories of people (especially children) mistreating guns. So I plan on taking my children often to firing ranges and showing them what guns can do with a watermelon or pumpkin. I am fine with them using firearms as long as I am there to supervise them. I firmly believe that as long as people have the proper respect for firearms, they will not mistreat them, and the likelihood of accidents and deaths is greatly diminished.
#23
Guest_bruevitz
Guest_bruevitz
-
- Guest
Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:58 AM
So whats the main topic of the debate here? Owning a firearms or the misuse of firearms?Here's something interesting: though US reserved the rights for its citizen's to bear arms and protect themselves through the second amendments, its crime rights is still higher than those in South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which none permits its citizen to bear arms.So the problem here we see that it is the misuse of firearms. A common but lethal problem. Common as a misuse or mishandled is a widespread issue, and not necessarily just in dealing with firearm. Lethal as the consequences can be deadly to the victim, the law enforcer, and the bureaucrat administration who got lucky handling them.The misuse of firearms is of course, mainly having to do with personal, or it is gang-related crime. Even though it is still prone to be used as means of threat in the blue collar-ed crimes, personally I don't believe that, actually its is the middle and upper class members that have better access to firearms, and eventually misuses them.Since its just a matter of statistics, the more people who owns them, the more chances someone will misuse them, and its not likely that the second amendments gonna be amended, I think it would prudent for the officials make the procedures of obtaining a firearms be difficult/rigorous/expensive. For example: all subject that applies for the ownership of a firearm should be examined by a licensed psychiatrist to determine the applicants mental health to bear arms (lol, I bet its gonna be difficult to pass).Oh yeah, owning automatic weapons is a BIG NO for me. One would only need an automatic firearms to get MORE kills faster. Unless US is going to be invaded anytime soon.What is your view on guns? I think that guns are completely fine as long as they are used for target shooting only. I think all automatic weapons should be able to be accessed the way automatic weapons manufactured before 1967 are in the US (weapons manufactured and registered before 1967 can be legally purchased by law abiding citizens that fill out proper documentation and pay a transfer fee [I believe it's around $250 extra]). I also think illegal purchasing of any weapon should be cut down on by all nations.GP's were awarded for this post, DOTW selection! - Finalage.
