Buddha
Parlor Mage
OMGWTFBBQ?
Posts: 234
|
Post by Buddha on Jul 6, 2004 20:17:31 GMT -5
Well, I'm amazed that this hasn't been brought up as an arguement. Should guns be illegal? Well with the NRA and all them rednecks that's not going to happen. Now, this is what I believe. As much as I hate guns, rifles should be legal. Rifles can kill obviously, but they're mainly used for hunting. Pistols on the other hand aren't used for anything but killing others. How many accidental deaths/injuries are there each year from guns? Quite a lot. Not to mention a lot of these accidents are from small things...like a teenager coming home at 3 am. Bang. Or someone turning on the light to find the bathroom. Bang. Also...mistakes with the safety. Ya the safety's on...bang oh dang i guess not. Mistakes are what make guns so dangerous.
I strongly believe guns should be illegal. We all know that can't happen so here's my compromise. Rifles will be allowed...however you would need a hunting license. Pistols would not be legal to own. In Minnesota, (where I used to live) now it's legal to carry a handgun in public. It's crazy!! I heard the NRA was trying to make machine guns legal...inconceivable?
Sorry if i trailed a little off topic at all...getting my last post in before i sleep. Let's hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 6, 2004 21:35:49 GMT -5
I actually agree with you 100% Buddha. Handguns are absolutely useless except for killing other humans. I might be inclined to let the police carry them, but never a regular citizen.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jul 7, 2004 8:02:43 GMT -5
Making guns illegal, aside from being unconstitutional, also won't stop people from killing each other. Remember when England first tried gun control? Sure, shootings went down -- but stabbings and clubbings skyrocketed. People are going to kill each other. Deal with it.
|
|
Scythe
Task Mage
Awesomely Cool Member Guy
Quite Possibly Mad
Posts: 533
|
Post by Scythe on Jul 7, 2004 8:48:19 GMT -5
I think Pinata has distilled this down to the key point. People are going to kill each other in whatever way they can. If we want all domestic killings to stop, we're going to have to ban all blunt objects, ropes, chains, clothing, utensils, and most known chemicals. At least this way, the police can spend time hunting out just the murderers instead of everyone who owns a gun. And besides, the black market already has so much merchandise to trade in, so why make it even more profitable for them to work with firearms? I know they do it already, but a decrease in supply will result in a greater demand for firearms from illegal sources, thus giving even more power to black marketeers and probably resulting in more violence instead of less.
In short, let them have their guns, because they'll kill people anyway. It's a much cleaner and less gruesome way to kill than beating or stabbing...believe me, I know ;D Also, murders done by guns are more easily traceable (ballistics and gun identification by analyzing the bullet). Less work for the fuzz.
|
|
Buddha
Parlor Mage
OMGWTFBBQ?
Posts: 234
|
Post by Buddha on Jul 7, 2004 9:36:48 GMT -5
Well just about anything can kill, but guns are easier to kill with. Knife vs gun. Unless the person can dodge bullets..gun wins. Guns make it easier to kill...look at the presidents who have been assassinated. They were all killed by guns. Point is that there will always be killing, but it would be harder to kill with no handguns.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 7, 2004 10:06:01 GMT -5
Making guns illegal, aside from being unconstitutional, also won't stop people from killing each other. Remember when England first tried gun control? Sure, shootings went down -- but stabbings and clubbings skyrocketed. People are going to kill each other. Deal with it. There's two problems I've always had with this argument. 1) In Canada, controlling guns isn't unconstitutional, so that argument doesn't work. Besides, it's a question of whether it's right, not whether a piece of paper from a different time with different values endorses it. 2) You use the same statistic that Static used when we talked about it on DMC, but that stat doesn't tell me one important thing. Are thse deaths from stabbings and clubbings, or just people getting attacked? Neither time I have heard this stat has anyone ever said deaths went up, just people getting attacked. You'll have to find the source of that and clarify. It's like that old story about WW1. In WW1, the allies switched from soft caps on their soldiers heads to solid helmets, and as a result head injuries went up. Now you've got to be asking yourself why this happened. Clearly solid helmets are safer. What this statistic doesn't tell you is that the number of soldiers who died from shots and shrapnel in the head went way down, but because people who got hit in the head were now surviving, there were a lot more cases of concussion, and bruising, or to put it plainly, head injuries. These weren't counted when they happened before because it was a rather moot point if the person was dead, so the number of head injuries went up greatly. It didn't mean the helmets didn't work though. To the contrary, these helmets were keeping people alive, even if they did get head injuries as a result. I believe that's also the case with the story of British Gun Control Legislation. Maybe the number of attacks increased, but you've got less people dying because they're attacking with a less deadly weapon.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 7, 2004 13:13:12 GMT -5
Making guns illegal, aside from being unconstitutional, also won't stop people from killing each other. Remember when England first tried gun control? Sure, shootings went down -- but stabbings and clubbings skyrocketed. People are going to kill each other. Deal with it. Oh, people are going to kill eachother no matter what, so we shouldn't do anything to stop it? If a person get's jumped on the street by a guy with a knife, he has a chance to fight back...somewhat. If a person with a gun decides to attack, the guy has 0 chance at all. It has always amazed me at why gun stores carry M-16's...why do they do that? Not like an army is going to break into your house or something. Rifles should only be legal, they are sufficient to protect your house, and can be used to hunting (which IMO is still a insanely stupid practice).
|
|
|
Post by kemykal on Jul 7, 2004 15:19:13 GMT -5
i dont know. im reluctant to give up my legally owned gun because i know plenty of people have illegally owned guns. whether they make them illegal or not, there will still be guns on the black market. taking them away from law-abiding citizens just widens the gap between the criminal and the victim.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 7, 2004 18:04:52 GMT -5
Ah, but where is the black market getting their guns from? The truth is that 3/4's of guns used in crimes are acquired by stealing them from law-abiding citizens. If we cut off the average citizen's access to guns, we cut off the main source of black market guns. Then we just have to worry about the Mexican-US border, which is already pretty stringent, at least compared to the Canada-U.S. border. So keeping guns out of the victims' hands also keep them out of the criminals' hands, according to the info I have.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 7, 2004 18:08:55 GMT -5
KEMY'S GOT A GUN!!! RUN AWAY!!!
*Gooses*
|
|
|
Post by BraveFencerMusashi on Jul 11, 2004 12:01:35 GMT -5
Guns should be legal, it is our right as citizens to bear arms in our own defense as outlined by the Second Ammendment. Guns kill of course, but taking away our guns would be like taking away our freedom of speech.
Here in Ohio, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon except not on the side walk or the park or a school or a pool or a shopping market or anywhere. Any private institution or public institution has the ability to disallow guns in their area, and this is complete BS. Why be able to own a gun, when you can't carry it anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 11, 2004 12:47:38 GMT -5
What makes the second ammedment right though? I mean, we don't have a guaranteed right to bear arms here in Canada, and we're getting along fine. Prove to me that the second ammendment is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 11, 2004 15:03:21 GMT -5
Bush wants to change the constitution to ban gay marriages. Are they hurting anyone? No. No one seems to care that guns are killing people everyday though. Just because something is in the constitution, does not mean it's right.
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jul 12, 2004 8:48:20 GMT -5
It still makes it a civil rights issue when whiny overprotective parents (and the Canadians who are apparently so easily brainwashed by them) want to take away guns, though. I myself prefer to fight hand-to-hand like a real man, but it's my RIGHT to carry a gun, and I'll use that gun on you if you try to take that right away from me.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 12, 2004 9:20:36 GMT -5
But it's a silly right. I mean, you don't have a right to bear nukes, even to protect yourself, and they're weapons too. And if you tell me that you should have the right to bear whatever kind of dangerous weaponry you want, then I'm going to have to disagree. There are limits on all of our freedoms, and I don't see how this is any different. We agree that you shouldn't have the right to bear claymore mines or C4, at least I hope we do, and yet pistols have the exact same purpose: killing other people. A right to bear arms is not one of our "natural rights", in my opinion, and you haven't shown me why it should.
Here's what I've got so far: Why should you be allowed to bear arms? Because it's my right as an American citizen. Why should it be your right as an American citizen? Because it's my right as an American citizen. Am I missing something?
|
|
Scythe
Task Mage
Awesomely Cool Member Guy
Quite Possibly Mad
Posts: 533
|
Post by Scythe on Jul 12, 2004 9:50:24 GMT -5
You have a point, Elfie. However, nukes and C4 probably aren't the best examples to use. No-one in their right mind is going to defend themselves by carrying plastic explosives or radioactive metals around in their back pocket for simple self defense even if it was legal. There's no way a handgun could ever do as much damage or cause the long-term, widespread, devastating effects that a nuke could, so nukes are banned from public use while handguns are not.
Speaking of which, this reminds me of a news story I heard a few months back when the federal government confiscated a high-school kid's science project that he had built in his garage. The kid had built a working nuclear reactor. It was kinda funny at the time.
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jul 12, 2004 12:33:16 GMT -5
Nukes and C4 are just as dumb though! Ok, lets looks at stats. People who have guns in their houses and use them to protect themselves during roberies are 4 times more likely to die or have a family member die. Thats protecting yourself and your family?! Bullsh!t.
|
|
Scythe
Task Mage
Awesomely Cool Member Guy
Quite Possibly Mad
Posts: 533
|
Post by Scythe on Jul 12, 2004 13:00:55 GMT -5
that may be true, Stalin, but consider that over 75 % of all statistics are either exagerated or completely made up. I would be very hesitant to believe that people who take steps to defend themselves are 4 times more likely to be killed or lose a family member. Also, if there is some truth to these statistics, one still has to consider whether these deaths are a result of improper use and/or storage of these weapons? In properly trained hands, a handgun that is cared for and stored in an intelligently chosen location should be no danger to the holder or his family. Finally, what would have happened in these households where people were killed due to their ownership of handguns had they not gotten the gun in the first place? If not rapes and killings, then at least an easy robbery that would encourage the continuation of a career in burglary. By removing these self-protective measures, this nation would be in fact encouraging crimes by removing a major method of defense.
In reality, I don't really care much, but I kinda figure that if there's gonna be a debate on this, then all the issues involved should be made evident.
|
|
|
Post by kemykal on Jul 12, 2004 13:39:53 GMT -5
No-one in their right mind is going to defend themselves by carrying plastic explosives or radioactive metals around in their back pocket for simple self defense even if it was legal. i guess im in my left mind.
|
|
Scythe
Task Mage
Awesomely Cool Member Guy
Quite Possibly Mad
Posts: 533
|
Post by Scythe on Jul 12, 2004 13:52:57 GMT -5
Thats the spirit, Kemykal! I can see it now:
Robber - Stick em up! Kemy (pulls out nuke) - Haha sucker!!!! (hits big red button, entire city blown sky high)
|
|