Alright guys.
I'm shocked that I couldn't find a gun control/rights/laws thread on here.

But anyways.
Let's get to it.
Tell me
>why we should or shouldn't have guns
>your ideal gun laws
>why you think and feel the way you do

In my opinion, we need to have more extensive background checks when handing out gun licenses, psychological screenings, criminal records, the works. We should make sure that we're letting responsible and sane people handle guns. Also, and people might hate me for this, but we need to crack down on assault weapons, like machine guns and the like. Pistols, hunting rifles, hell, even shotguns I'm okay with, but lets face it, no one needs military grade machine guns. You can defend yourself just fine with a regular gun. Speaking of which, there should be mandatory gun safety courses that people must take if they wish to get a gun license. Too many accidents happen because people don't know how to properly handle a gun.

The stupid thing with letting everybody have firearms is that guns don't cancel out guns. If you're letting everybody have a weapon that takes a life with ease, it isn't going to make the psychotically unstable ones less likely to use their weapon, it's just going to give them, if anything, competition. There is a reason why America has had more mass shootings in the past decade than the rest of the first world combined.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "STOPTHEGUNSNOW"; I'm just saying that allowing things to continue as they are is completely unsustainable. First of all, there needs to be intensified background checks and renewal periods; secondly, all existing gun laws need to be revised and checked for holes. What too many states in America are trying to do currently is fighting fire with fire.

And saying that because it was in the Declaration of Independence removing it would start a landslide of government impeachments upon our freedom is illogical. The Declaration of Independence was written fucking ages ago in completely different times. Why are we not allowed to modify out-dated laws? Obviously the gun situation was completely different back then. If the government wanted to impeach upon your freedoms, they would/have done so already. I also think people who say that underestimate the democratic power that the people hold in most modern first world societies.

As I said before, I'm not trying to be one of those incredibly left-wing idiots who just want to complain about bogans without actually doing anything; I just think that a tool as powerful as guns should be handled with great responsibility. If you were from an alien civilisation and came upon humanity allowing psychopaths easy access to an object with power over life and death, wouldn't you find it ridiculous? (of course that could probably be said about lots of our society)

/end

I want a tesla gun *.*
Is so awesome!

All I have to say is that restricting guns or taking guns away, will only allow the criminals to have guns easier over others.

Look Solace i understand where your comming from but you cant change the Declaration of Independence but you can remove the right to have guns Because it only states that we have the right to baer arms that dose not only mean guns does it?
No it does not you can have another deadly or life threating weapon in your house like a sword, knife or my fav the baseball bat

Here's the thing; the right to own firearms wasn't meant so that people could say "Oh look at all the guns I have, they're so cool!" it was so that when (no, not if) a revolution was needed the people would have a way to fight against the government. Our founding fathers new that all government was inherently flawed and would eventually need to be renewed through an uprising of the people. The removal of this law is, in my eyes, a sign that we may soon need the liberty that it provides.

Coming from the UK where guns are already very highly restricted, you don't have criminals in the street waving firearms around while normal law abiding citizens have no means to defend themselves. Statistics say that if you own a gun, you are far more likely to be injured by a gun than if you do not. By definition, that makes most arguments for owning firearms redundant. In the USA, whether it is a constitutional right or not, a system which equips the masses with weaponry to kill other humans cannot be a good idea. If you just ban guns entirely to the general public and have an armed SWAT team collapse upon anyone you do see with a firearm, you fix lots of problems. The fact that firearms are necessary in a society to protect the masses is a sign that policing is sub par more than that 'people are bad sometimes', so surely the solution is to prevent the crime rather than to arm everyone with the means to both perform it and defend themselves from it.

>>8 It's the same in Australia; the fact that gun laws are incredibly tight do not stop civilians from protecting themselves, the shooting rate is incredibly low. 90% of the shootings we have here is crossfire from a gang fight. In all reality, if some is going to rob people, they are going to use a knife rather than a gun, guns are unwieldy and bust you heavily if you ever get caught.

The problem is that America has already been flooded with guns. Technically, even if we did stop the flow now, there would already be a heavy excess. We just need to cut down on the mass shootings, it's ridiculous that some people consider it a part of life in America. Literally, more mass shootings than the rest of the first world combined. If that doesn't scream a problem to you, what does? If it isn't the lax gun laws causing this, what is? Questions that are so faithfully avoided need to be answered by these people.

>>7 The Declaration of Independence was technically written so, yes, the citizens could rise up against their government, but the real reason was completely different. They lived in a time when the US was pretty much an ungovernable wilderness with Indians still existing as a threat. They handily used that philosophical point to make themselves look good in the meantime. Also, if the government ever needs to be over thrown these days, it will not be through ever citizen pulling a gun out of their ass and taking on the army, do you think that would win? The internet is a way more powerful tool.

Once again, why is it that countries with much tighter gun restrictions are actually way safer? The last shooting mass shooting in Australia was Port Arthur and that is a historically memorable event for all Australians. The LAX shootings will probably be forgotten in a week. It is not okay that people are allowed to do this.

The problem with gun control is not the guns or statistics, but rather the people. People believe the right to bear arms was enacted to protect them against the government, and they believe by doing background checks or *gasp* having a national gun registry, the government is somehow depriving of their rights. This mindset is what is hindering progress in this matter. Look at Australia, they were also very against having gun control before it was enacted, but I am guessing no one is complaining about the number of mass shootings since then.

We should be modernizing the process of distributing guns, instead of holding on to values from a time period and way of life that does not reflect our own now.

The fact is it'll be impossible to get rid of guns. They flooded in over so many years that they wouldn't ever be able to get rid of them, not counting that these laws have to be put up to a vote and never actually pass the way that they hope.

>>12 I don't think it is necessary to remove guns entirely to solve the problems they pose right now. Australia was in the same situation as the US, with guns everywhere, but things have gotten much better there. Plus, the right-wing government in power, knowing it was going against their base and that they would lose their jobs were the ones that enacted gun reform.

>>13 Ever since the Port Arthur shootings the gun laws have been drastically tightened. It just requires a unanimous opinion from the people and America is lacking that.

>>12 Some part of that is true, certainly, but I don't think that gives anybody license to give up. Just because things are bad now does not mean people shouldn't work towards cleaning up the gun situation in America. It's a damn long shot but what else can you do? Sit and watch any psycho with a will to kill get his hands on an semi automatic rifle?

I think the real problem with guns in America is that we have that cliche "American Badass" ego thing going on.
Our public is so desensitized to violence and reality at times that having as many guns as we do is asking for trouble, I agree with you guys on that.

I also agree that we need a heavy reform on gun laws and restrictions but I think before we get into that we need to get into a cultural reform.
We need to teach our children how to use guns the right way, how to respect them as tools, and to not be such violent cunts.
I don't think a lot of people in America realize how serious the power of a gun is.
Like you cats were saying, it's a decision over a life with just the pull of a finger. That is a huge responsibility that I don't think a lot of Americans really understand for whatever reason.

I own guns.
I own guns because I don't trust other people to not come to a point in their life where they are desperate enough to hurt me or my family.
I own guns because I don't trust governments or politicians or the stability of the banking system.
I don't hunt with my guns.
I don't show off my guns.
I don't take my guns to the shooting range.
My guns are tools of death, it is a very somber thing to hold a gun for me.
They are there in case I need to take a life to save a life.

I think if more people took guns more seriously that we would be much better off.

>>14
You'd still sit back and witness a nut get a hold of one, no matter what laws are put into place.

Do you think criminals, say even mobs are going to give up their guns, or the ability to import and export the guns just because the law is being more strict regarding those guns?

Criminals have guns, because more times than not they already got them through illegal means that the Government hasn't any power towards alleviating

Also those in school shootings, as well, will find a gun, or other means of enacting said "danger" upon the schools. It just isn't possible to stop the criminals, and if they were to change it how they WANTED to change it, then it'll be mostly those criminals with the guns while everyone else has limited supplies, or no guns at all.

I own some guns, I keep them in my room in case of zombie apocalypse.

>>16 No, you wont. Are most of the other first world countries in the world no evidence for you? Granted, America is a lot more of a tricky situation but they can still pull it off; it just requires people not to have a 'fuck it' mentality.

The criminals that import and export guns will still use it but when are they going to use it on innocent civilians? Gang wars are always going to be a thing, what they do it with will always be the most deadly and easily accessed weapon around. It just means that A) petty criminals will have a harder time getting one, B) criminals will be more worried about packing in public and C) people who would get a gun and potentially injure themselves or others with it due to pure negligence would also find it harder.

What about that kid who accidentally shot his friend to death, playing with his mothers gun? People are starting to not take guns seriously. I saw a brochure my American friend sent me talking about 'a gun for him and a gun for her', a pair of pink and blue hunting rifles aimed to be bought for couples. The fact that such a deadly weapon has been turned into a cheap romantic gimmick is ridiculous.

I honestly think that you are wrong about how making guns harder to access will just give the criminals advantages over civilians. I don't want to sound like a stuck record but Australia is a real example of how these situations can be fixed. If you don't learn from other countries, you're just striding blindly into murky water.

>>19 I think that with the cultural stigma in America, in regards to guns, means that a reform on our current restrictions will cause an imbalance and it would only be a matter of time before some people started feeling really ballsy.

I'm all about the state providing a gun to each family, along with proper training and proper gun attitude.

We don't have a gun problem in America.
We have a huge problem with our society and how we relate to one another though.
And I see that being the root of most of the shit we get ourselves into as a country.

>>20 A world in which every citizen would willingly go through proper firearm training, respect their gun and make sure never to abuse their privilege is also a world in which Communism, Socialism and school group work projects would also function fine.

>>21 I know that it won't happen. I'm sure that no matter what happens with our gun laws the nation's violence won't change.
I honestly don't think there is a fix to any of this nation's problems other than starting over from a clean slate.

>>22 That and a serious overhaul of the values this country and it's people keep.

>>22 If only that was a thing that could happen. Seriously, can you imagine if governments just had a 'restart' button? Or maybe even just save and load functions.

Unfortunately the major problem with a capitalistic democracy is that it corrupts itself. I see no viable option other than a different country (my money is on India) becoming the next major super power. They probably wont suffer from the same gun laws issues but I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't have major problems of their own.

I just feel like if we can't train everybody to use them responsibly, we can't feasibly bring the flow to a stop and we can't stop people getting their hands on them illegally, the best thing we can do is make it has hard as possible. Granted, it wont work perfectly, probably not even well, but at least it's something.

I think the main problem is people's distrust in the government. Lots of people think they should have the right to have a gun in case they need to overthrow the government, so if the government is trying to take them away, it seems really bad. I don't think most people in the NRA are going to have their lives impacted that much by gun laws, in fact I don't think a lot of people in general would. It's just they are afraid of what the government would do next. In my opinion, taking away guns would not cause any problems, and if the government were to be overthrown today it would not be with guns.

>>19
It only works if they actually took time BEFORE to do it. Not wait years, and years, and years. They've waited too long, and the only thing they can do, and will happen, is just limitations, and little ones at best.

>>26 Little ones at best is still at best.

----

I'm not entirely sure what my specific opinion is on this, as I've noticed it wavers with my mood (if I'm tired, I have more negative, pessimistic thoughts, and tend to be a bit more cynical about things), but it generally leans in the direction of restricting guns.

I am very pacifistic. As such, I believe that violence should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary. Even then, I don't think you should kill.

I agree with the comment made above that fighting guns with guns is only incendiary. It just creates more fear about being injured or killed by someone with a gun, and we already have too much of that as it is. Rather than thinking that you should protect yourself with violence if someone comes into your home to steal something, or tries to be violent towards you, why is the first thought not attempting to resolve the matter peacefully, without violence? That is more difficult to do, yes, but I think it's better to at least try it than to let your immediate thought be of causing injury or death to another person before they can do so to you. That kind of thinking leads to inaccurate and unrealistically negative perceptions of other people's motives, inducing paranoia.

I think that much of that mindset (and, similarly, the mindset of wanting to keep your guns for fear of what the government could do to you) comes about because people are too fearful. A certain amount of fear is healthy and can be useful, but if you have too much, it gets in the way of logical thinking and reasonable decision-making. People are too paranoid about other people's motives. I don't think people should trust blindly, but they shouldn't mistrust blindly, either.

On a more practical note, I think more should be done to look into why people have done shootings various other kinds of violent acts and to identify contributing factors (I believe there has been some research done, but from what I understand, they've yet to have much in the way of useful findings). That way, people would know what to look for and could keep a better eye on people they know who may be inclined toward such acts. I don't think it should be something like reporting the person if it can be helped, but rather steering them away from it in a more supportive way.

The way I see it, there does need to be some cracking down. I can understand if someone wants, like, a pistol to protect themselves. But literally no one needs a machine gun to ward off offenders. I understand that we have the Second Ammendment, and I do agree that we have a right to own weapons. But it's when we go too far that I have issues.

As previously stated by others, the only people who'd willingly give up their guns and not hide them away are the civilians who are, tragically, often caught in the crossfire.

That said, I think we would have much less crime- if only because there would be no good-guy-gone-bad stuff- if we did end up banning guns. I'm not saying it's right, but I do think that any sort of random murdering done by the guy next door would be pretty much a thing of the past.

Both sides, I think. make a very good argument. I'm sorta torn.

>>31 I'm torn as well and for the most part I agree with you, but let me shed some light on why I do think I should be allowed to own a machine gun.

I don't believe in the goodness inside the hearts of my fellow man. It's in our nature to survive and survival really is survival of the fittest, be that in the physical or mental sense, or even in the sense of being better fitted with weapons.
When push comes to shove I don't doubt that my neighbors would murder me in my sleep if it meant their family got to eat that night. I don't doubt that I would do the very same to them if it meant that my family lived another night.
I don't doubt that you wouldn't do the same for your family, would you not?
I had said that I don't believe in the goodness inside men's hearts, but I want to clarify that I don't think people are evil either.
I just think it's nature to be on top of the food chain.
To deny that is to deny the very truth in front of you.
The truth that built you as an individual and built society as a whole.

Survival is survival of the fittest, it might be through years of adapting and using the land to advance ourselves as the apex, years of slaughter and forced dominance, or even from the inside of a culture out, but there will always be a tippy top of that food chain and it's always going to be an ugly fucking climb.

Think about a farm, think about the docile, domesticated animals.
Most, if not all, of their means of defense and instinct to question the farmer have been bred out by generations of domesticating the animal.
Now think about why the farmer would do this, of course the bottom line is the farmer makes a profit, but there is a process.
First the farmer's ancestor had to disarm the animal's ancestor. The farmer's ancestor had to have an edge on the animal's ancestor and that could only be achieved if the farmer's ancestor was better armed than his prey.

After the bull was castrated, so to speak, it was just a matter of breaking it's will to fight against being disarmed, tamed, and eventually domesticated and reduced to nothing but a living resource for the apex of the food chain.

So, if you really think about it, why would you want to allow the farmer to have an edge over you?

I stand by my claim that here in America we don't have a gun problem, we have a people and culture problem.

>>32 Yes, people are always going to harm each other. That is exactly why we shouldn't allow automatic weapons at all and limit other guns. We should limit how much harm humans can do. Sure, they'd still find other ways to kill people, but a knife can only kill so many people before you get overpowered. A machine gun can wipe out dozens and still be ready for more.

I agree with Inuhakka, They really should limit more weapons because no man can even have a gun that can kill two peoples in row and anybody can have it, thats the worst case here. And calling killing someone with gun like a defense. Thats funny as hell

this reply is so late but still, I'll do this
>We shouldn't have it because it's meant to protect ourselves but it's being abused. Some are very "Brave" when they talk when they have guns but if you take them away, they're all cowards. Only officials(police,soldiers,navy etc.*note:although some of them abuse it too, sadly*) should use them.
>To prevent shootings from happening, Everyone who has a gun should be tested.(Psychologically)
>Because every person I know with a gun feel so high about themselves to the point that it's almost pathetic. They think they're invincible.

What I believe everybody here has forgotten is it is useless to restrict guns. We could impose laws for years to restrict firearms and make it illegal for people to have them. We can restrict ammunition but the fact remains that the people who we are trying to keep firearms from are the people that break the law.

I shall make an example. Japan. Japan has a zero tolerance gun law. Nobody is allowed to have a gun. Even their law enforcement is restricted on their right to carry a gun. But has it stopped anything. No, Japan may report less crime than the US but that is because they have less people to commit the crimes. In 2012 their population was reported to be 127.9 million. That same year they reported 3.6 million violent crimes involving firearms. In 2012 the US reported a population 313.9 million. Our violent crimes involving firearms was 5.8 million. How is it we have more than twice the population and not twice the violent crime involving firearms. I am not going to argue that having a firearm stops criminals, but I am saying that legalizing firearms isn't going to do a thing to stop it.

We need to stop focusing on the gun. A cold hard fact is that "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!" Before firearms, we had bows and swords. Before that we had clubs. Before that even we had rocks. People WILL kill people. It is a flaw of the human nature. We are violent beings that seek to dominate our environment by force. Chreggome has it right but it isn't an American problem.

The WORLD doesn't have a gun problem, we have a people problem.

I have always believed we should own our own guns. I back those people walking around major cities holding automatic rifles on their backs, because we have a right to protect ourselfs. I thin (just my opinion) That the world has gotten so soft, for when they see someone walking with a gun, their first reaction, he is going to kill us.

>>40 Indeed, friend.

Honestly, I'm a registered gun owner.
I have 15 guns, a combination of pistols, assault rifles and a shotgun.

(I live in the USA)

Now, the reason I own so many isn't because I have the desire to massacre people, no, shooting is a hobby for me and various guns shoot differently and are good for different things so you could call me a collector of guns for this reason.

My rifles are fun, I have both an AR and an AK, I took them out just the other day to shoot pumpkins and water bottles which was a lot of fun.

I took the pistols as well and shot some paper targets I had strung up using a laundry line.

Now, lets backtrack a little.

Roughly two weeks ago, somebody decided to break into my apartment.

I'm not a man, I'm a woman. A small, 22 year old woman standing at only 5'4" and weighing just 110lbs.

So imagine my surprise when a tall, burly man appeared at the top of my staircase just as I was exiting the shower.

Now imagine his surprise when I reached into my bathroom cabinet, extracted the 9mm I keep in there and aimed for his pelvis...?

While I agree that guns should be regulated in the sense that we don't allow those who are mentally unstable to own them, I don't believe that we should prevent legal, mentally stable people from ownership.

While I enjoy various types of guns for various types of target practice, I also enjoy them for self-protection. Imagine what would've happened if I didn't have that gun?

Me wearing a towel versus a much taller, stronger man?

I'm sorry, but my guns are the equalizer between me and them. =]

I wouldn't feel safe going to sleep at night, without them.

>>43 Pls take me now.

>>43
I can get behind this logic. I don't think we should do away with them here completely but there definitely needs to be tighter regulation for obvious reasons.

That being said, as a sound designer it's pretty nice to have access to pretty much whatever to record sound effects. Though I can't say I'd ever own a gun for any practical reason.

>>40 How about Canada? In 2006, they had a population of about 31 million. The total number of violent crimes involving a firearm? About 9160. That is about 0.000295% of the population, while your stats on the United States indicate a substantially higher rate of 0.0185%. That is about 63 times higher than Canada, which also has a restrictive gun policy. However, Japan has a restrictive gun policy, and their population to violent gun crime percentage is 0.0281%, higher than the US.

What that proves is not that restrictive gun policies work or do not work, that proves there are more things going on in an entire country than population and gun crime. Looking at those two statistics alone and declaring anything is useless.

"People WILL kill people." Yes, I agree completely. But with guns, they can kill more people quicker than with rocks and clubs. Think of missiles, nukes, etc. Same kind of problem, blown up to a ridiculous scale. Sure, it's the people launching the missile, but with their one thought hundreds die. All you need to do is pull a trigger.

http://www.johnhoward.ca/media/firearms.pdf
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/index-eng.cfm

i think that a responsible should be allowed to own a gun if you dont think its right than let me be the first to tell you like it or not even if the goverment of america bans guns people will always have gun.i would rather than have goverment regulated weapons than banned ones if you dont believe me take citys like chicago with the restricted gun banneds in the us and the highest crime rate too so do i be-leave that it has to do with heat waves no im from tampa and we have never had such a high crime rate thats my say

Criminals will be criminals. If gun control were in effect, it wouldn't matter, the criminals would continue to be criminals and use them. It is also against the US constitution to have any form of gun control laws, so there's that happiness for the US. I know for a fact that even the strictest law enforcement around here wouldn't enforce gun control.

Gun control also makes it so you can't defend yourself as easily. I can't find the video anymore, but a single about thirty second video raps up all of my thoughts on gun control. The gist of it is that a woman gets pulled into an alley way, three guns shots are fired, and the woman walks out of the alley putting her pistol back into her purse.

Easy this page or blog or somthing is interesting . But for my oppinion man kind shoulndt have a guns because its a sin to kil someone . Get this if a man knows that what he's doing and still keep doing it , it only means he like to do sins or he's not guilty to do it . If only ONLY people would realize what is happening . If you BELIEVE in the person WHO SAVE US 2000 YEARS ago YOU WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE AND not only ETERNAL LIFE but have an AMAZING LIFE . AND THAT PERSON IS GOD

>>49 Nice b8 m8, i r8 8/8

>>51 Because they are trying to troll you.

>>52 Just realised, must delete evidence.

Goodtroll/10

>>53 lolololololol

I guess I must give credit where credit is due.

1/10 for making Solace reply.

bump

bang bang thug lyfe in chi-town is hard but the guns still gon get past da radar feds watchin aint gon do nothin for dem chicago boyz dey wild i aint gon mess wit non of them

Well to start if all guns were removed like they are in britain then only law abiding citizens would give them up leaving them vulnerable to violence. You can't argue that we have police because its clear that they are there only after the crime is commited.
Why do these crazed shooters always go for schools? or public places like an airport? why arent these "mentally unstable" individuals going for police stations? or gun shops?
Removing guns would only greatly increase crime.
As for firearms that fall out of the conventional catagory of riflesm, pistols, and shotguns those are for hobbyists and would only further anger a large majority of U.S. citizens. If it came down to popular vote, or, if people would be smart enough to call there representatives firearms of all kinds would never get restricted.

side note: even if firearms are banned its increadibly easy to obtain an illegal one, especially from where i live(california)

What I'm curious to know is, if you were able to give a country a clean slate, would you keep the gun laws the same? I've noticed some people saying that there is no point because America is already flooded with guns. So, given the chance, would people restrict it, or would they still let it flow?

>>58
Unless there is some magical miracle to actually force the clean slate, to remove the guns, then no one would stop the flow we already have.

It's like a BIG creak, it'd take a shit ton to block off the flowing water, but if the creak is already big enough, and the actual flow is quicker than what gets blocked, it'll just keep flowing.

What is wanted and what is actually possible are two different things, and while some countries could or have pulled it off, I fear we're by far the worst when it comes to the amount of guns and the speed in which those guns are obtained, and the means in which they are, as well.

I think that guns are fine, just not for people who would use them for bad, well...if someone broke into ur house though, then it's fine lol.

>>60
Yet you cannot rightfully determine who would use them for bad intentions just from the person purchasing "said" gun, even background checks only determines what they have done, and not what they will do.

----

>>61 That's an unfair way to judge somebody though. What if you applied for a college, and while your school records were spotless, you had great grades and everything, you were denied because they said "Oh well who knows what sort of student you'll be in the future? We just can't risk it, go somewhere else."

It's the same logic. It's unfair to assume things like that. You have privileges until you prove that you are not responsible enough for them ne?

Pew pew!

>>63
I'm saying they shouldn't base stuff on the fact they did bad in the past. It doesn't determine the future.

>>65 Ah I see your point, sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that they shouldn't sell guns to anybody even somebody with a clean record because we don't know what they'll do in the future.

:p

I guess it would depend on the crime really. Past crimes that is. If they have a history of violent crimes then we should probably not give them a gun.

But at the same time, statistics say that the weapon most often used to kill somebody, is.... a knife. =p

Guns are not the leading cause of death, for the USA at least.

This is just such an in-depth topic that has such varied view-points.. People make it seem so black and white, but it's really complicated.. I mean.. I think everyone has the right to own a gun (if they're of legal age), assuming they don't have some form of psychosis or a violent criminal history.

urusai!

>>65 Let's sell guns to not-nazis-anymore people, they "wanted" to kill jews but not anymore so it should be fine, not.

People's past should be taken into account in this action, selling guns to people is a serious business

>>66 Is right, criminal history, age and reasons as to why you purchase a gun matter.

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

hi im a new member

Outright ban them. Anyone found to have possession of a gun is subject to prosecution. Gun's are not tools for self defence, they are tools for killing people. They do not belong in the hands of the general public and never have. That said I'm sure someone reading this will raise the issue that there are already so many guns in circulation throughout the general public that we need them for protection, however my answer to that is: If the laws against possession of guns are punishable by a considerable penalty and there are no exceptions, then the use of one is a sure fire way to end up subject to that penalty. People will likely think twice about using one after considering this.

Maybe I'm too idealistic, could be; regardless, I thoroughly believe the possession of guns should be completely banned.

I personally think its stupid to even allow guns to be sold although there are various reasons for it however it's not as if the streets are literally warzones, guns should be prohibited however if they were to be sold i would strongly agree with what Sloshy said.

The only realistic way to solve the gun issue is to crack down on background checks and slowing the trafficking of firearms to those without permits. Trying to completely ban weapons would only spark an uncontrollable conflict that would result in the very thing gun laws are supposed to prevent:death. The idea of banning guns completely is a childish, unrealistic, and damaging resolution. Ideals won't stop the violence, reasonable action will. Guns can be obtained through many methods. They are most often bought privately and without background checks and to people who aren't certified to possess them. Enforcing the law in areas where guns are illegally traded could slow down the trafficking of firearms; it won't necessarily stop the violence. The reality of the situation is that there is very little that can be done, and there is simply too much money invested into the world of firearms to dismantle it. As for those expected to solve the issue; they can't. They know they can't. But victims of gun violence and their families expect them to try regardless.

You should also take into account that areas in which the average person is armed at all times are the same areas with the lowest crime rates; potential criminals are deterred due to their awareness that people are fully capable of defending themselves if need be. Overcoming the war against drugs and the gangs that partake in drug trafficking would also result in less violence..however it would take an all out war just to suppress these gangs.

No, we should not remove the right to bear arms. Guns don't people, people kill people, after all!

If guns killed people, then Remington Winchester Taurus etc would have no factory workers kuz guns would kill them all. Humans are animals that kill other animals, and fellow humans are no exception. Hell, its possible to kill people with a fucking safety pin, guns just make it much easier to kill anything than using a safety pin. Humans by nature are predators, its practically in our blood to kill things. Its what we evolved to do. Be the biggest and baddest killing machines. Sure, there's plenty of other things that can kill better than us, but we have also evolved to where we have transcended the need to kill things for survival. But we can if we want. Guns make it easier, as I've already said. Guns also make it easier to survivel ask a hunter if they prefer a rifle to a self-made longbow, the vast majority will choose the gun. Why? Because its easier to use, more accurate, quicker, takes much less time, is much more probable to finish off the target, etc.

So, to keep guns alive instead of just focusing on the humans-killing-humans part, we can focus on the benefits of it, like feeding ourselves. And defending ourselves should the need. Be so great. Hell, if were banning things that can kill people with ease, let's ban kitchen knives. Rocks. Water. Ropes. Wood. Walls. Cars. Plumbing pipes. Cups. Keys. Gym sets. Why we don't? Because people don't use these items specifically for killing others. They can be, but were not designed to. So let's use guns for something other than killing humans. Like target practice. Or feeding large families in a short amount of time. Or self-defense training in case of a bear attack, badger infestation, nutria overpopulation, etc. But above all, guns make it easier to kill things. Humans are accident-prone, fragile, extremely sophisticated, often fail at many things, and have primitive judgement calls when it comes to making big decisions under stress or emotional pressure. Eliminating guns alltogether is bound to start a riot (it already has in some corners of the world) including the use of things that they are trying to ban in the first place. Guns, if use improperly, are highly dangerous to everyone within 1-5 km of the firearm. Even a .22 caliber can travel a mile and a half unaided, and those things are some of the weakest out there (compared to shotgun shels under guage 16 and .45 cal firearms).

I do not think we should take away guns based off of one negative versus many positives, just that we should teach all who have them (hell, why not everybody?) How NOT to accidentally blow a hole in the person standing next to them. Safety first, especially in projectile weapons. Flares, flareguns, slingshots, bows, handguns, potato guns, airsoft (or CO2-powered) guns, even foam ammunition guns; they should all be handled carefully and as safely as the situation allows.

That's just my two clips.

>>68

Use common sense when talking to me or I'm not going to acknowledge your posts. I never said to sell them or not to sell them, all I'm saying is that it's impossible to determine for most crimes seen in background checks what someone will do.

yeah..theyre right..people kill people..so,i have a proposal for all of you..

if we see someone in danger because of another person or anything at all, lets help them and take a stand..lets help the community and show people that the dollars are made for good and not evil, even if it is an anonymous orginization..

Guns can to "defend" our countries- of course, we wouldn't need them if we didn't start wars and such in the first place. I would have said that we should keep guns for self protection, but guns weren't made for that. Guns were made as an efficient way to kill, although I dislike admitting it-that's what they're for. We can't control what comes in and goes out of our countries and its not an ideal world-no laws are going to make people stop using them. My opinion in general of guns isn't really important though since it's not going to affect its use, I just think that trying to get rid of them isn't going to happen. As so many others have stated here I think that the owners should go through a extensive background check, criminal records and such~ We should already know that they will probably be used in the future anyway, whether it's in self-defense, for wars or just criminal acts in general. It may be guns that are used to kill but it is us with the intent to kill.

Feel free to comment and find contradictions~ Its interesting to read other peoples opinions~

erg.....*can be used to*

>>86 I would say laws will stop people from using them. Look at Australia and Canada, Australia is a better example because they used to have many guns in circulation just like the US. Canada has very little gun violence every year, about 63 times less than the US, just 9160 in 2006. Sure, criminals can and still do get a hold of guns, but the numbers don't lie. That isn't even deaths, that is every crime involving a gun.

Basically, every person here who is advocating for guns could still get them if there was gun control enacted. They couldn't have automatic weapons, there would be restrictions on clip size, but they could still have guns.

Having gun control is not about eliminating guns (or shouldn't be in my opinion). It is about limiting the spread of guns and only getting them to those that deserve them. I don't consider it a right, I consider it a privilege.

I believe only the competent and responsible are the only exceptions the one's that aren't are improvident and ignorant, however no prohibition of guns will make negligent gun enthusiast give their precious guns.

>>84 Use common sense yourself and and acknowladge that some times you can be wrong (not talking about this thread but about your posts in general).
You can't know what someone is going to do just by checking their criminal background but you sure as hell can predict that they are going to do something bad (if their record shows so), sooner or later people with criminal record tend to use their "skills" once more.
So criminals records can be used to predict someone's future acts.

>>88 Ah true, although, Canada has a little under 9 times less the population than the US~ Still, the fact that there are so few deaths (or crimes involving guns) in Canada/Australia proves that strict laws are really helping. It's actually lucky that you had mentioned that or else I wouldn't have done any research on Australian laws~

Unfortunately some countries-take the US for example, think that banning or tightening the laws regarding ownership of guns as useless. Phillip Van Cleave (a US gun advocate) stated that "Australia is not the United States. It's some other planet: different people, different everything ... but in the real world, with human beings, it's not going to work and gun control isn't going to work." So even if I did believe that "getting rid of guns", destroying them, or making gun ownership stricter, it wouldn't make much difference in countries that don't want to do that. You might disagree with this- but a single person like me isn't going to change anything~

>>91 I said 9160 just for emphasis. The '61 times' comparison comes from percentage of population, which is taking into account differences in population.

That quote from Philip Van Cleave is ill-conceived, to say the least. Australians are from another planet? I know one Australian in particular I share many of my opinions with. They aren't a totally different culture than the U.S. or Canada. In Australia, the exact same arguments were made against gun regulation: the government is over-reaching, taking away rights, etc. And yet, those same people are now realizing gun control is not all that limiting.

It is convenient for people to think Australia is totally different from the U.S. because that way they don't have to consider what they have been fighting against their entire lives is not a terrible tragedy to befall mankind, but rather, perhaps, a step forward in the right direction.

The biggest problem with passing gun control is people are afraid of what might happen. I thought after Australia basically succeeded in enacted gun control on a population with strong pro-gun support, people would see it isn't that bad.

We have a people problem and a gun problem.

...::...

Whether guns are legal or not, people will still be killed. Anyone can pull a triggeer and shoot a gun, which is why shootings are never regarded as acts of passion. Most people who fire pistols and kill people are sane. They kill for practical reasons like money or feuds. Real monsters, like mass shootings, are done with weapons that arent legal regardless of what the NRA says on the subject. You cant take away illegal weaponry. At the same time, what about those who need it for defense? Its a conundrum that can't be solved without hurting someone in the process. How to solve this? Through manipulation of supply and demand. Inject money into contraband and illegal sales of weaponry to make weapons a luxury. The hundreds of guns will be reduced to 10 or 15. 1500 becomes 15000. Life as a criminal becomes expensive, so much so that criminals will no longer see it as profitable. Inject money into the legal gun sales. People can no longer afford AR15's and settle for small arms and pennypistols. Guns become a luxury. People who have the expensive guns hold onto them and guns stop circulating. No more small arms in the hands of criminals because ammo will skyrocket as well. Simple manipulation of legal and illegal practices to eliminate a threat with exascerbation of inflated prices. America's got plenty of lies under its belt. Why not add one more?

^ for order

For me, Guns is not necessary...

I dont think its necessary either, but it would be unconstitutonal. But even though its not needed, I dont believe there is a need for restriction.

a the gun result was to keep the government from becoming a Communism but some restrictions should be allowed but lets be honest here look at say chicago it has the most restriction on guns with the most violence in the u.s do you really think that restrictions on guns will solve anything i think that the though of no gun owning citizen will in tice people to do wrong weather you want or own a gun or not it your own chooice and i believe that its your right to make that choice if you dis a gree tell me why and al tell you more about why i choose that way

>>97 If a wolf catches it's foot in a trap, he'll chew off his own leg to escape. If America's gunlaws allowed for the insane to grab hold of them, then they should only be available to those who can part with a large sum of money to afford it. Most "insane" people aren't well off economically. Holmes lived in an apartment. That cop killer earlier this year was a policeman. That's not a very high paying job, or high enough to purchase a high priced gun rather. If a gun were the price of a used car in great shape rather than the price of a playstation 4 in South America , people wouldn't be so quick to splurge on them. How about 4000-10000 dollars for a carbine or a rifle rather than 2000-5000? Hell, how about 10000 as a starting point and 2000 for a pistol? You can keep the prices going up. America thrives on its war economy and what better way to make that money back by forcing gun prices worldwide to skyrocket by supply and demand? Now we're talking a worldwide net of gun purchase limitation.

>>100 Sorry buddy but i think your missing something real important. Guns are a private industry and therefore subject to the taxes that the government puts on them. But at the same time the U.S. military is treated as a separate entity Working as directed by the Government while maintaining separation. There are no tax exemptions from Private Companies. Especially if the Guns are foreign.

The Government can't say sell me 1 rifle for 200 dollars and then tell the Company selling that rifle to sell 1 gun for 20,000 dollars to a regular person. Just can't do it. It'd be impossible to make that work in a constitutional fashion. Thats actively cheating the American people and the Private Company that loses money on sales.

P.S. Pistols are typically more expensive that rifles when buying for recreation.
P.S.S. Personally i think >>2 nailed it. A medical background check, psychotic evaluation and plenty of snooping into a persons personal life will reveal if someone is addicted to heroin and likely to lose there shit while wielding a chainsaw and the 9mm pistol they almost bought.
P.S.S.S. I think gun control is necessary, and an important issue.
P.S.S.S.S. I really want the Beretta F.S. Inox its boss as fuck

Some of the most dangerous things are guns but i use them to hunt i pay my tax on it i do what is responcible and obe the laws but do other people anywhere in the world and dont say no with enought hard work can get a gun or make one i see the crime aspect really i do a gun is just a tool it was made to make life better im not saying that you all who say guns are bad we need more restrictions on guns and there owners or stop sale compleatly but people will only teat it like proibition and is it really the real problem i talked to a friend of mine from irland on this and people in irland the uk autraila anywhere still kill eachother easy enough what real diffrents is it once you deside to kill there is little to noway to stop it .lets be honst its a human problem of there diffrent thats what it comes down to and power nothing changes except the fact that if your speacking for the united states it the united states problem not the uk england or any one else THE POINT is that people kill if you want to stop that then think a teach the people you care about why not to kill and ask them to pass it on so we can stop it to a smaller amoute and then we could care about diffrent issues that need to be confronted

>>101 The constitution is out of the picture. Yes, it cheats Americans. Yes, it stifles rights. Its no different than selling us the right to maintaining good health. No common man needs a gun. I can't say anymore.

>>103
>No common man needs a gun

You're an idiot.

>>103 Well, that's true, the common man doesn't need a gun. If another common man who also didn't need a gun but had one anyway decided that his life was worth more than yours, and came to your house to take some things that you didn't really need, I suppose you don't really need to defend yourself or stop him.

If you were going for 'no common man needs an automatic machine gun', I'd agree. But, I see no problem with common people having smaller weapons like pistols or hunting rifles.

>>104 Do you think you'd still need a gun if no one else had one? Or, do you believe in having one for another reason?

>>105 As long as their are police and military forces that have guns, I feel that every day citizens should have them.
Get rid of guns all together, and we have a different situation on our hands.

I think that we don't need any gun, remember we are members of Dollars! If we only do good things for the other people, nobody have something against us.

>>105 automatic weapons are prohibited regardless. Back in medival times and renaissance, every death by sword or one's hand was one that was passionate. Nowadays, death has lost its chivalry and its fairground. People who rob houses generally dont care for the people inside. They dont kill people unless they panic. At the end of the day, these robbers are poor. Stealing a TV or a game system doesnt hurt the family directly. It just shows them entertainment is fleeting. You can argue that "people dont deserve that" but everyone has told a lie. Most people have stolen. Whether you find the item valuable or not, taking something without the owner's consent, even if that person has no judicial or political power, is stealing. Whether young or old. Dl children deserve to die? Does anybody? The common man is the man with a second chance. The thief is the man who circumstance denied a chance. Until everyone's born rich and the economy is restored. Until everyone is raised with two parents of established moral backgrounds, let it be said that everyons is innocent. With a gun of any kind, people tend to neglect mercy in service of power. How many people have died because of misconceptions? People defended Zimmerman's gun rights. Hes been arrested multiple times since the incident with Trayvon Martin, all because of his aggression. You cant give guns based off past health and decisions. Nobody can tell the future. The only way to get rid of the gun problem is to make it too expensive to get in the common man's hands. Terrorists arent always brown and speak foreign languages. The day we recognize every murderer in america as a terrorist is the day we move forwards socially and politically. Racism aside, arm noone by making guns unaffordable or go back to a simpler time.

It's not so simple even if you get rid of guns then humans will go back to swords and knives. It's not the weapons that are the problem it is the humans that make them into a problem. A citizen should have the right to bear the same arms that the government does so that they can coexist with neither force being more powerful, so that the government cannot enslave it's own citizens. Most argue that we need more gun control, which I to an extent agree with. Where I differ from the others is that I know that there is an illegal gun market where even a child(minor) can obtain a gun given the right amount of money and the right contacts. If you make guns harder to obtain, then this illegal market will experience a large boom in business. Then we will have to increase our budget to help combat the deluge of illegal guns into the country.(The United States) The United States barely has enough to pay it's teachers to educate their youth, so then where will this money for increased illegal weapon control come from? The only option would be to tax the people even more, and no one wants to pay taxes as it is. I would rather the gun laws stay the same because at least as they are now authorities know who some(probably not even most) guns are registered to, rather than having massive amounts of illegal guns in the streets in numbers greater than they already are.

>> 109 if you encourage higher prices through illegal acts as well, you can kill two birds with one stone. Either a, criminals cant afford it or b, criminals feel theyre being scammed and kill each other. Either way, problem solved. Swords and knives are better for protection. An ideal world. You can dodge a sword but you cant dodge a bullet. You can block a sword but nothing you do will block a bullet. We're giving opinions. This is mine. Think, would holmes be able to kill 12 people with a sword while they're running? Would trayvon had been able to defend himself against a sword? Possibly. You could make crime manueverable and avoidable.

>>110
You do realize it's much more painful and slow to die from bladed-based wounds, right?

One benefit, mostly, from a gun is that it's a lot more of a humane death than that of swords and knives. Also even if you make the prices of weapons higher, there are those groups working with the criminals to create or supply them with weapons.

Higher prices only make it harder for the average, working man to afford decent protection.

Also making the prices higher will just make the criminals steal from other sources if their sources don't provide. This would only work in a perfect world where you can magically get rid of the weapons they do have, so they can't use them to obtain even more.

>>106 So, it's about the people having the same power as the government. That I can agree with.

I would then argue human beings, be they government workers or common people, should not have guns. It is too easy to kill someone with a gun. If you tried to kill someone with your bare hands, chances are you wouldn't. Not only would they fight back, but it is much harder mentally. You are the one that has to beat their life out of them. With a gun, one thought, one motion and someone is dead. This is the problem I have with guns.

When people say 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.', they forget that guns make it so much easier. What about grenades? One thought, one lucky throw, and you can kill dozens of people. How about missiles? Same idea, one thought, one push of a button, except hundreds are dead. Obviously it is blown out of proportion, but that is my problem with the idea of guns.

In this sense, I agree with the latter half of >>110.

>>113

Still, the people saying it have a point. It may be easier, but most people should already be well aware of the deadly forces in which they have acquired. Which isn't the case for a lot of people, but that isn't the people's fault who handle guns the way they are meant to be handled, and as such you really shouldn't punish the majority for the few that don't understand shit about weapon mentality.

It pretty much is the majority who handle them correctly. But because of how often it happens, it makes it feel like we actually do have a MAJOR gun problem. A problem, yes. Major one? No.

>>114 I wouldn't say the majority of gun owners need to be irresponsible for there to be a major problem, and in fact the only reason that is true is because of what I said. Guns kill people way too easily. One person can cause too much damage when they have access to guns. I don't care if everyone else can be responsible. If one person can get their hands on enough firepower (legally) to kill dozens of people in minutes, I think we have a problem.

You may not think that's a problem, if most other people are responsible and do not kill anyone at all. But I think guns are too powerful for a human population with people that want to kill other people.

In Libya weapons are like chocolates :P but I'm not with the gun's policy because when someone gets angry will do something stupid and he will regret it for the rest of his life

>>115

One of the issues isn't how they obtain these guns, a big problem is a lot of people just aren't made aware of the weapon, or how dangerous it can be. Hell even people in gangs, I'm certain of know they can kill but don't quite grasp the concept of how deadly they are.

Most of these people learn about weapons from movies, cartoons, games, books, music and their parents, whatever, don't actually teach them what to do in the proper manner, if at all.

If most of these people had proper knowledge of weapons, I bet you the over all issue would decrease a bit. I think schools should actually teach proper gun awareness and how to handle a weapon once they reach middle school, or at least during the 8th grade before going into High school.

>>112 that's why it's an ideal world, not an existent one. People didn't have problems with it before. We can treat stabbings now better than we could before. The slow exacerbated death gives time for people to save you before exinsanguination kicks in. A bullet to the head? Even if you live, you'll be paralyzed

>>117 That bit at the end about gun courses is actually a thing in other countries. People learn how to use guns and weapons in a proper man threw semi-military training. I don't know what the stats for murders are in those countries though. But I actually like that policy in general.

And for all the people arguing about ideal worlds and what not. Ours isn't ideal guns are a thing whether you like it or not. They are here they will stay the NRA has deep pockets and they only get deeper. Deal with it and think up real solutions.

Like BACKGROUND CHECKS

I wouldn't mind it where the more children you have, the less amount of guns you're allowed to have.

Say you're single, or just a have a wife, they will allow you to have the legal limit if any, of any and all LEGAL weapons for the public until all your children in the "household" is 18 and/ or older. Next would be to implement the mandatory gun courses in school, and forcing all adults to obtain their Carried Concealed.

The moment you have 1 child, it dramatically lowers the amount you're allowed to carry, and of what. If you're a family man anyway, you don't need to be stock piling weapons and ammo anyway.

Actually have all grades have a course in weapons, each grade learning a bit more actively about the weapons than the last, up until they finish their final year in High school, and if they go to College, even more courses then.

http://imgur.com/G4WwQJA

>>121 After the scale of the United State's spying program was revealed, how many people took their guns and fought against the government?

Plus you don't need guns to overpower your government. If every single person in the United States rioted in the streets after something happened they didn't like, I think that would be just as, if not more effective. Look at India, they didn't even have weapons of any kind and they still managed to have power over an invading force.

They may have weapons and technology over you, but you have numbers. Don't you think there are other ways to have power over your government than guns?

>>122

I really doubt that invading force as as strong as our own country is. You can't seriously sit there and compare countries like that, when our country alone could easily wipe groups like India out with a push of a button.

Not all countries have the power countries like the US have, and so we have to keep up with a way to defend ourselves at a much higher rate.

Countries* Not groups.

>>110 Yeah you're definitely right about the swords and knives. I myself have a few swords and can use them quite effectively, they are a great means of defense but a little tacky at this point with guns and all. But yeah you're right though, I don't know about the price thing though that doesn't make sense.

>>120 What's the point in having guns to protect your family if having a family disallows you from getting a gun? I also think you kind of missed the point of >>123. Inuhakka was saying that a developed, democratic population such as America does not need weapons to protest or usurp their government. There are other tools at the disposal of the average first world country, rather than just guns. I think that kind of 'ahh, so many people are out to get us, we need power to protect ourselves from the villains waiting to popup' mind-state that leads to a lot of gun related crime. Paranoia can be a bitch. Not to mention, the kind of people that work themselves up into that mindstate are generally not rock-solid in the first place.

>>122 None, sadly.
That's what the liberals have turned us into.

You don't need guns, but when you're fighting one of the strongest armies in the world, wouldn't you want guns?

>>126 While there are ways to do it without guns, but you guys have said a number of times how easy a gun makes it.

1. We SHOULDN'T Deal With The Guns. Coz That Will Killed People Soul, Turned Us Become A Jail "Houser"

But If The Situation Get Warmer (?) , You'll Need It.

2. " Guns Can Make Hundreds Of Emotion (?) "

3. I Dunno XD

>>127 I am saying that guns are very effective at killing, but not really effective against a modern day government, mainly because they exert power over their citizens in a different way. If what you say about guns is true, wouldn't every gun owner in the country have stormed the capital after learned the government was spying on their phones, emails, and other personal data? Wouldn't that matter?

I would say the true power the government has over us is the ability to control our apathy, making us not care about whatever they are doing (it's for national security) and care greatly about practically non-existent problems. People care more about their neighbor getting up and shooting them in the middle of the night than the government looking at every private message they've ever sent anyone and not telling them about it. I think that apathy is largely due to governmental influence.

Perhaps people are so apathetic because they think their guns will protect them, but guns will not protect against the kind of power the government is currently wielding.

A government that has access to confiscated experimental weaponry, nuclear weaponry, drones, tanks, jets, stealth bombers.. You're going to need a bigger gun. Oh, and the NSA's backdoor into every american's internet life cuts out any possibility of forming an attack plan against this entity known as the government. At the same time: think. Who will fight for this government? Armies are made of people with values they reluctantly abandon in order to serve their country. If anything they would fight against america for America. Police? Police are people too. The only real threat would be the weaponry. Take away that and theres nothing. Guns arent even needed. Riots are more than efficient to overwhelm any force. If airborne, theres no hope. This illuminati/government nwo fantasy is old. Its a fight easily won.

Oh, can people please stop having a sook over NSA? They stopped multiple terrorist plots through it, and didn't even use your information for malignant purposes. What everybody is having the biggest cry in human history over is the Government hiding something they weren't supposed to be doing from our knowledge 'wow, that's new', and the fact that they could possibly use that for negative purposes at some point in the future. Granted, it's a problem, but people are treating it like the biggest government fault in human history.

>>131 My biggest problem is 'stopping terrorist plots' is about as vague an excuse as they come. Who is to classify what a terrorist plot is? It's even worse considering they are stopping things that haven't even happened yet. If there is no outside interference, they are entirely up their own discretion to define what a terrorist plot is, and how far they can go to stop it. How can you possibly imagine a person or group of people having access to that kind of information/power and not using it malignantly?

Of course, this kind of data mining has been going on for years as you said, and not just by the government, but that doesn't really make it any less of a concern. A bigger concern than this data mining is the lack of concern about it. If nobody really does anything about it, they will continue to do this kind of thing.

How would you feel if your private conversation had a few choice keywords about the government their sieving algorithm caught and you ended up answering to the authorities? Sounds like the beginning of a society I do not want to live in, hence my concern. The fact that no one has really risen against the government with their guns makes me skeptical of their purpose.

>>130
We get it, you want guns taken away. If I recall you've already said this time and time again (I could be wrong) but guess what? It won't ever happen. America will always have guns. It's not an option, and gets annoying when every Tom, Dick, and Harry mentions it as if that will make it happen.

>>132
Even if people show their concern, do you think that makes any difference?

Buddy we've had guns since the pilgrims landed here, during the western movement, and still have them today guns are practically part of history. Not just here but all around the globe. They've helped us through the bloodiest wars and brought us the greatest victory. I know they are misused today. Practically up to the point where most of the world would agree with you. But that choice of misuse isn't the government's fault. That choice is up to the people who own one.

>>133 exactly...this world is definitely NOT an ideal world....

No more guns..pfft....that is something that won't be happening. Say for example, anyone with a gun is to be put to death (extreme, I know....) it is only human nature to "break the rules". You can't get rid of them and even if the government think guns are gone there will always be a few here or there~ (of course that get-rid-of-guns law won't be put into action or anything~^^") I might not make much sense and you might not agree with me, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

>>134 Idle chatter and stating your concern of course accomplishes nothing, but if people stopped going to work, protested in front of government buildings, or rioted in front of the White House, the government would have to do something. If enough people did that, they couldn't just silence them, they'd have to do what they wanted.

This happens in other countries, like France. If the government did something they didn't like, they stopped going to work and paraded down the streets until they got what they wanted. This is how it should be: people should have power over their government. I don't see guns as the way to do that.

>>135 Why is it up to the people who own one? Should raping baby pandas be up to the people who commit it? Also, being a part of history never justifies anything ever. Racism, social segregation and genocide are also large parts of recent history, you don't hear people petitioning for their rights to do any of them.

>>137 Exactly, there's a reason why unions are so successful. Would not be nearly as productive if you just gave every single worker's union a crate of sub machine guns and told them to rise against whenever they wanted.

There will be a point in time, small or big, one time or spread out where the use of guns for the masses will be necessary, and while most things could and can be accomplished with these protests, that won't always be the case.

You know what i have posted 1 on this thread about the gun debait so im going to give a real life example and no the common man is a historical fact remember just before world war two in poland they didnt have gun in the citys im not saying assult wepons just protection so the ss or nazi just marched in almost no fights as far as i read in the history books till after athough you can argue im wrong or that wouldnt happen today then your crazy i mite be wrong about the fight but we all knew the out come people need the abillity to stand up and if they die forit its there choice but if the day came in a small shoot out with gang members who have guns illeagaly ether way and when living in areas where ploice dont show up and yes they exist try detroit chicago nyc and other towns why should i make it easy for them to kill me im not looking for trouble i just want to defend my self or my family if god for bid somthing happend to where we couldnt get help yes i will go through the tax system take a class if that mean the diffrence between my life your life or some else life being saved but i would omly hope that day wouldnt have to come but if it does i want to be prepared for it if you can disprove me othere than were in a time of peace trick then let me ask you do you really think it will last that long even if it doesnt hit here nothing last forever that all i have to say so far just think about what i fully said before the quote

>>140
If you could actually speak proper English, maybe I would think about what you're saying.

>>138 I believe I said a few days ago that mankind's ambition is poisonous. Governments are put in place because while free, people need limitations. They need rules and they need boundaries. A truly free world can never be a moral world because if there is nothing stopping you rule wise, you can do anything. Rape, murder and robbery would be permissable. Not condoned but noy condemned. Thats the world these anti government people want. A world without flags and factions. A world without logos and titles. A world where everyone is truly equal. A miserable existance.

asdf

asdf

...::...

----

Well i have read alot of your replys and this is what i came up with the us and uk are very diffrent because of our orgins alone but to let you know any ways this is why i believe we should have guns the first reason is because in certin areas and town the police dont come and are over load on work you could just walk into your house and find some one that doesnt belong there 2 we have a self defence basis if someone cornor you in an ally and you think your gonna die and you dont have a phone you can use your gun though i believe in stricked controll on guns but the whole gun issue isnt that bad in real life it only seems like a dire issue because of bais librail media which doesnt even tell about the good things about guns like the man who save his neghbors from being killed by robers by shooting them in the leg so they couldnt leave till the police got there so get your information from more than one sourse on the subject ok and good bye

I hate guns. they should never have been invented and(going against the "non-violence" thing) i want to go back in time and stab the person who thought of guns. i think guns should be completely illegal and destroyed and that it should be against the law to even mention them. i have never liked guns, I've always preferred swords. especially in war swords are better and more honorable. guns you could just mow down anybody. with swords you are face to face with the man your about to kill. guns should be illegal, destroyed, and replaced with swords.

>>150
While I disagree with the concept off widespread gun ownership on principle, I really have to disagree with you on your point of "guns should never have existed" first on the basis that the modern world as we know it couldn't exist without firearms, and second, because sword combat isn't as honorable as you seem to think it is.

To keep things simple lets say that the two defining things that led to the development of the modern world are global colonization by Europe, and the widespread nation shaping wars that spanned the globe. Colonization (to the degree that it was carried out) would not have been possible without firearms. Firearms provided such a difference in the level of strength between a handful of European settlers and an army of natives that the European settlers were able to flourish while the natives perished. Without firearms you never would have seen battles like Rourke's Drift (150 British vs 4000 Zulu), or wars like the first Opium War (19,000 mixed European troops vs 200,000 Chinese) where a small number of European soldiers were able to win battles that led to widespread colonization of the area.

Much of modern Europe has also been defined by the wars fought since the advent of the firearm, which drastically changed the way that wars were fought. Instead of using siege warfare and castles as the main offensive and defensive tactics (which meant that war took a very long time) field battles became more common, and cannons meant that sieges ended faster. Without firearms you would never see things like the first or second world war, or the conquests of Napoleon, or the devastation of the Great Northern War, all of which changed the face of Europe and had a significant effect on the influence that European countries would have on the world.

You also argue that sword combat is more honorable, as you get to see the men you kill, and combat is honorable and straight forward. Sadly, this isn't terribly true. The idea of chivalry dominating medieval combat is more or less a myth, while the idea existed, combat itself was brutal and often dishonorable. Archers would do there best to mow down advancing armies, cavalry (the much vaunted chivalric knights) would mow down fleeing enemies, and foot soldiers (more spearmen and pikemen than swordsmen, it was easier and cheaper to train and outfit spearmen than swordsmen) would be in the middle of a crush of armies, swinging wildly over or under shields to try to incapacitate enemies on the other side, who would then be killed or held for ransom as the battle line moved over them. There are accounts (notably at the battle of Agincourt) where captive knights were massacred in fear of the battle turning and them returning to the fight. In truth, the only time there would have been honorable, one on one sword fights would be duels or tournaments, but you would get much the same conditions from a one on one pistol duel, so that point is moot.

Well like it or not humans just wanted a more faster and less bloody way of killing each other i believe they call that inovation and nomatter what we say people will always kill each other the question is how by suffering bleeding to death or a quick shot to the head the out come is the same but i believe the gun is more mersifull but what can you do if we outlaw the whole gun thing people will start useing bombs or sword and nifes for all we know most crimanals will still have guns there is pratically no way to get rid of.them anyway so why take them away from the people who want to defend them selfs

>>151
IDGAF if the world wouldn't be the same. are you saying that not even a small part of you wouldn't be interested to see what the world would be like without guns? i do like the idea of cannons and stuff like that though, i just don't like the idea of guns because they make everything easier. and without guns there wouldn't be all these horrible things happening. and Chivalry is bullshit. and i think we have different views on what "honor" is. idk what you think honor is, but at least to me, honor and chivalry are different. everybody has different views of "honor". mine, is that in an honorable fight, you should be face to face with 1 other person, fighting for a real reason and not just to kill, and actually fighting with a weapon you need real training to use and not something that can be easily used like a gun.

i've used a gun before and just dont care for it. i hate listening to people go on about who they want to shoot. i hate having to hear there was another school shooting. i hate hearing gunshots around my house. i have my reasons for wishing they were never around and i dont care what the effects on the current world would be.

Dude people are always gonna kill each other guns or not it isnt a gun problem its a social/political issue social because most of the shooter are victims of bullying or somthing that another made them want to do that and a political because of people taking advantage of the situation for there political gain its really never gonna stop i am just waiting to see how they will kill each other next

Oh and ps bleachcraft8 do you really want to hear a cannon fired around your house or a school because that does more damage than a gun i assure you that

>>155
EPIC ^_^ as much as i despise guns, explosive devices are my 3rd favorite type of weapon, with fire as the 2nd, and swords/other melee weapons 1st.

Bumping.

Regulate guns heavily, get them registered with the government, stop giving out semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns with high capacity magazines (seriously WTF?)

Also, can we stop blaming video games for real world violence? I'm all for getting rid of Call of Duty games, but that's because they suck, not because they cause violent behavior.

>>158 Regulation makes sense but fully automatic weapons already aren't legally sold to civilians. The buzzword "assault weapons" typically refers to weapons that look like existing full-auto models while people hear "assault weapon" and assume that it refers to an automatic weapon. About semi-automatic weapons though, do you like the idea of having to re-cock a pistol every time you fire it? Any weapon that fires upon each pull of the trigger instead of firing a continuous stream of bullets is semi-automatic. And guns can be bought with a small mag and then have a larger mag purchased or already owned.

>>153
I can honestly say that I would not want to live in a world where there were not guns, and this is speaking as someone who does not own a gun,who has never owned a gun, and who will likely never own a gun. Putting aside the other technology you would lose if guns never developed, a world without guns would be a world where governments no longer have monopolies on violence, anyone with a blade is now as well equipped as a policeman, anyone with a sword as well equipped as a soldier. Do you think that not having guns would make the world safer? The main use of guns is as a deterrent, people fear guns, and fear that people might have them. I bet home invasions, armed robberies, all of those crimes where firearms would be a deterrent would skyrocket if guns didn't exist. You would have to go back in time 500 years to find a time when society could handle guns not existing, modern society could not survive that. Personally, I don't want the world to go back to working the way it did 500 years ago, life was nasty, brutish, and short.

Not to mention that your idea of honorable combat never existed during wars where swords were used. If you are talking about violence outside the context of warfare, then sure, 1 on 1 exists, but very, very rarely in the way you describe. What you are describing is a duel, which was pretty much the only time fights would be as evenly matched and honorable as you described. Most sword fights would be extremely one-sided, a fight between a strong man with a sword and a weak man with a sword, or someone with training with a sword against someone with less, is much less equal and honorable than combat between two people handed loaded pistols and trying to kill each other. Just because people have swords doesn't make them any less likely to try to use the element of surprise, to try to catch people off-guard, to use dirty tricks. Your average sword fight will be no more honorable than your average gunfight.

Do you really think that random acts of violence wouldn't exist without guns? In countries with low levels of gun ownership, mass attacks still happen, most often with blades. For example, from 2010 to 2012 there were 7 separate attacks on schools in China alone by knife wielding assailants, all of which killed between 5 and 20 children. Guns aren't the cause of that sort of violence, people are.

Honestly, I am all for guns. Not because owning a gun is 'cool', or that its because of 'freedom'. Rather, I think guns add greatly to personal safety. This is coming from a person who has never had a gun, and grew up in a 'no- weapons' household where I was beaten, raped and abused in terrible ways with no way to defend myself.

Having guns gives people the peace of mind that they can DO something if they are attacked. It is especially great for individuals who suffer from PTSD (such as myself) and who are terrifyed that their life is in danger every waking second of every day.

Its also a right. I have the right to feel safe, don't I? Do I not have the right of self defense, and of knowing that I can save myself if I get attacked?

Criminals dont buy guns legally anyways. So banning guns is only going to make a more dangerous world. The bad people keep their illegal guns, while the good people are forced to give their protection up.

I mean, think about it. If you are going to break into a big expensive house, and you know that the owners have no guns, yet you have an automatic in your pant loop, how safe is that?
Criminals love gun control. It means that their job is A LOT safer. The vicims are gunless while the abusers still have their illegal weapons.

Just because its illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I'm super happy with these latest responses.

Guns have helped us so much through the years, actually. If they think that guns, instead of the people who own them, kill people, why not ban broken glass as well?

Guns have helped us so much through the years, actually. If they think that guns, instead of the people who own them, kill people, why not ban broken glass as well?

>>161 I cannot completely agree with you.
Let me get it straight at first: even if your condition, past and present, was and is indeed peculiar (In a tragic way), you don't need my mercy to live so i won't show any.
I don't feel safe as you would if a person with a mental disease has the opportunity to own a gun. I could get shooted for i-don't-know-what in the middle of the street because someone depicted me as a "potential danger" even If i didn't do anything.
Everybody with a gun is able to kill, sane or insane, honest or delinquent, and i personally can't accept that.
In my opinion, guns give to their owner the illusion that taking away the life of someone is so damn easy, and it is!
I was born and grew up in Italy, a country with little tolerance towards gun.
But you know what? People here get killed /everyday/ by a mother, a father, a brother, a friend, the lover, the son, the uncle, the boss, by any kind of person and OF COURSE by delinquent, and they use knives, ropes, fire, heavy objects, ACID.
They go trough buying expensive acid to consume to death the bodies of the victims, and it's not a thing that happens only in movies but it happens on a frightening daily basis.

Now, imagine if everybody here would be able to buy guns like buying apples at the market.

I wouldn't have enough balls to kill a person, even to protect myself, because i know how much a human life is valuable: mine and others'. But knowing that other people who don't think the same as me can buy guns at any time, and bring them in any place.. Makes me feel extremely unsafe.

>>165

But people who don't think like you already can buy guns.

>>159
Well, if we are talking about handguns here, why would I need a semi-automatic pistol as a civilian? A single action revolver fires a bullet just as well a semi-automatic. Civilians wouldn't need a semi-automatic if they were going to use it for protection or for recreation at a shooting range.

Lets have guns but lets if stuff gets to intense we get phycological evaluation every so often to have them

>>166 And...? That's the point. In the US you surely can buy guns. In Italy it's a bit more restrictive. (you can buy simple guns for self defense, hunting rifles if you have the hunting license or sport guns if you have the permissions, but never military guns and heavy guns in a generic way)
I gave my opinion on the situation, not on the US situation. It'll become my problem when I'll decide to move there: until that day, it's only yours...

>>169 Because fuck thinking globally, huh?

>>170 What can i do alone? Do you want me to be sorry? I am, but nobody cares about a single person. Do you want me to say "uh yeah, you indeed have it worse"? I can't say what i don't honestly think.

I can't give an opinion about the US, i don't live there and i haven't seen the local situation with my eyes. I might be wrong if i tried.

It isn't like you care about the rest of the world, either...

I'm sorry for the spamming and if i sounded unsensitive.

>>171 Because you know me and what I care about.

>>173 Look, i don't know you and you don't know me, you don't care about me and neither i care about you, you surely know better than me that it's useless to continue a debate with no end. I've already gave my opinion on the topic. You don't agree with what i answered? Ok. You want to hate me for what i said? Ok. You want to have the last word? Ok. Go on and reply back, i don't really mind.

>>174 i dont know you and you dont know me

And thats how drunk people try to get laid at parties

Guns are just that an object what really do you all want an gun ban i mean only the police and military having guns will only make it easyer for the goverment if they have had bad people come in and take over the rest of us but we have to adress the issuse on more violentce well we really cant stop that kids are being more well presured every day we have lost our morals so what do you expect it will only get worse from here on out

It may be reaaaaally difficult to comprehend this, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions'. There is both an upside and a downside to the usage and owning of gun's. They may be used in defense, for protection of countries' (if you think that's what they're used for) or for fun. On the other hand a single bullet fired from a gun can start the war in which even more guns are used to "protect/defend" your country, or perhaps the owners' definition of "fun" is a killing spree that leaves 50 dead and 50 more injured. Even without guns we would just find more ways to kill things, whether its poison or getting your heart pulled out through your throat. Guns provide a quick and easy alternative, no mess, you can have it quick and painless, and even a baby could pull a trigger. The only reason guns are so "bad" is because we "misuse" them- but it isn't misuse, is it? Guns were created, as I have mentioned above, to kill. That is why I think we could have left it at >>2 and >>15 , which pretty much sums up my idea. >>16 has a point that I agree with. Most of the people here WOULD'NT do anything, we are "normal" people and I doubt that anyone would get in-between some gun wielding maniac and his/her target, not that I would expect anyone to. Sure, we want to help people, but we also value our own lives, it is as if its built into our brains that survival is key, stay alive, don't be stupid and get yourself killed, stay away from idiots with guns, ect~ I am pretty sure I wrote something almost identical to this, but screw it- I might as well get this off my chest.

Guns won't be going anywhere anytime soon. We need guns, even if its indirectly. They were made for a sole purpose to kill. We can call it "protection" or "self-defense", but in the end we use guns to hurt and kill both animals or other humans. I mean, did you think that they were really made to make the world "a better place", cause they weren't.

Ergh, please feel free to comment, criticise and correct me. I'm open to any opinions' you may have.

>>174 No, my problem is your apathetic attitude.
It seems these days that less and less people give a shit and that's what's wrong with the world.
I won't be lumped in with your generation of apathetic little babies, so please don't try to say that I don't care.

>>179 You surely care about this problem, no doubt! You wouldn't had created the thread if you hadn't cared at all about all. (i guess this sentence isn't grammatically correct, feel free to point out the mistakes if you want to)
I said that you don't care about me. I mean, why would you argue with me if you think i'm wrong and "apathetic"? Do you want to change my attitude?
I'm sorry, but i guess that i act like this only because it's you that i'm talking with. I follow others battles and believe me, i AM concerned about this problem...I just got offended by the way you answered to me, I probably replied back in an acid way, and I'm sorry if you too got offended...I'm sorry.
Now i don't really depict myself as "apathetic", i don't think you have the right to judge me when you don't know who I am and what i do in my life.
I'm sorry if you thought i was apathetic, I'm pretty sure I'm not. I didn't either have the right to make guesses on you, and I'm again sorry.

Now. Peace?

coffee cream dont mind what chherom said he's just mad that some one found a way to bring this fire fight of words of his to an end in a prefect way looks like this proves another dollar is in the world we should all be happy for that the world needs people who can do this now i think that his debait should come to an end i think are new friend hira has just somed up what need to be said talk to you on the next heated debait unless there is still more to post but this is pritty much over

>>180 Just because I think someone is wrong doesn't mean that I don't care.
I'm not offended by the way you respond, I couldn't care less how acidic a person is, I just don't like people that don't care.

>>181 >mad that some one found a way to bring this fire fight of words of his to an end

I haven't even started yet.

Also, you can't just decide when the debates end.
More people might want to put their two cents in, there are more members of this site than those that have posted in this thread. ..so, fuck you newfaggot. :))

>>182 Well, i tried to excuse me with you. I do care, but you neither want to listen to me or believe to me.
I don't like you either, but i don't hate you and i don't think we should continue with this arguing anymore. I don't want to spam anymore because this is distracting people away from the main topic of this thread: the great gun debate.
So, i ask you again: Everything is clear and nothing else needs to be uselessly explained further more? Peace now?

asdf

adf

>>183 and >>182 , its none of my buisness, but cut it out, please.

>>183 and >>182 , its none of my business, but cut it out, please.

^

Depending on how dangerous the area you live in is, you should own a gun. If the place is a very safe area, there should be no guns allowed. But if the area in which you live in is full of crime scenes, I think it would be safer if you had a weapon to protect yourself with.

>>189

I live in an extremely safe and rural area, and the majority of people own some type of firearm, and most own several. Hunting different game means using different calibers and guns. I own six firearms. Why? Not for protection, and I don't carry or hunt. Two are plinkers, and the other four can be used for target practice, hunting if I ever decide to, or to deal with troublesome wildlife. Rabid raccoon are a big problem, coyote too, especially around domesticated animals. Curious bear are usually dissuaded by a warning shot. The braver ones usually need a bigger bang to scare, but haven't had to put one down yet, although one figured out how to get into garages.

The fancy "assault weapons" that usually cause scares are no more than expensive toys; in comparison to handguns, semi-auto rifles just aren't common in shootings. One is cost; they're expensive. They're high maintenance. They're hard to conceal. Now, handguns are by far the most common used in killings. Compared to an AR-15, a handgun is cheaper, easier to use, easier to aim, easier to clean, much easier to conceal, and easier to dispose of.

A true assault rifle has a selective mode of fire-- semi-automatic, plus burst or fully automatic fire. Which have been banned from majority ownership since before WW2. Machine guns are simply not available to the average gun enthusiast without substantial licensing and capital. Pistol grips, heat shields, collapsible buttstocks, they're the equivalent of heated leather seats in a car. They don't add to the functionality of the gun; ergonomics, yes, practicality, no. Pistol grip is a matter of taste. Heat shields protect you from touching a heated barrel. Collapsible buttstocks simply allow the weapon to adjust to the user's stance. And just for reading this long-winded meandering post, have some trivia: AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite, not assault rifle. Armalite sold the design to Colt in 1959, complete with lack of forward assist and jamming issues. >_>

That being said, I am 100% for stricter licensing requirements; background checks mandatory across the board, a waiting period within reason, and checks to make sure the license recipient has the appropriate measures to store the firearms; a locking safe or reinforced cabinet, as well as secure carrying cases for transport.

>>183 Look, you've said what you needed to say and I've said that I don't have a problem with you or your opinion.
I've stated that I only have a problem with apathetic people, somnething that you've explained yourself not to be. Ergo, I have no issue with you.
Can't you just drop it?
Really, it seems like you're trying to get the last word in and it makes you look weak.

>>186 It is none of your business, and there is nothing to cut out.
Quit trying to be a part of something.

>>191 Good post, friend.
I kind of forgot all about wildlife out in the sticks, but you make a great point.

Also, anyone that thinks AR in AR-15 stands for Assualt Rifle is super gay.

guns are made to kill, fist are made to protect... guns should be legal cause if it was illegal bandits will be the only ones with them since they dont follow the law anyways.... but i guess they should ban big guns haha... ughh

My opinion on the situation:

Obviously, the fact that we can so easily access guns is retarded and I think it should be way better managed, especially the big, more dangerous ones (I'm not good with gun names so I won't even bother trying). There should be slightly more restrictions and our police need to do a way better job than they do now...

BUT we should not get rid of guns. It is in the Constitution for our right to bear arms, and we should keep it that way. I honestly think that banning guns is stupid considering the fact that our police force will have a great disadvantage to the majority of criminals who will still use guns, laws against them or not. More deaths would probably be caused by the lack of guns in our country than by having them.

Also, >>191 this.

Bump, since it's a recent issue.

can i bump this? cus like, the BBS is dead


like DEAD dead


bump of (hopefully) resurrection

Guns should be legal and sold, but people with mental health problems(depending on what mental problem) shouldn't be allowed them and everyone should have to be tested for mental problems before the purchase of a firearm.

Insanity has the right idea.

Also, people on the FBI's watch list shouldn't be allowed to buy guns (or run for President, but that's another story for another day), and I wouldn't recommend allowing people who were in jail within the last three years (for violent crimes) to buy guns.

>>198

ARE THEY ALLOWED TO??? IS THERE NO BACKGROUND CHECK?? I THOUGHT THERE WAS THOS WHOLE TIME

>>199 That aspect of background checks only include things you've been convicted of. The FBI watch list is based on suspicion, not conviction, so it's excluded from those checks. But if I remember right, the FBI can "mark" certain individuals so that they show up as a threat, etc. during a background check, although this isn't directly connected to the watch list right now.

I love my guns, not only that I love all types of weapons, but if they ugly nah, but for the total nut jobs yeah I'm having second thoughts not everyone deserves a gun especially when you go on a mass killing spree, the Orlando thing was for purification, I'm guessing what I am saying is irrelevant isn't it.

now my opinion might no matter but hear me out.
in some countries they blame everything but the problem, they have a people AND gun problem.
if you just look at it and think who has to die.
simple reminder that mass shootings are more normal the state dinners

Why don't we just let the people who actually NEED guns have them: The military. They need guns to protect the country. We say we need guns to protect ourselves, but then what is the military for if we ARE the country?
- Take all the guns away
- Only let people who are in the military use them
- Only let guns be used during battle in the military
- Make military entrance tests harder and have them emphasize opinions on guns.
Simple as that.

>>201 What do you mean by purification? Is that what you believe?

My issue isn't with the idea of people owning guns, it is what kind of guns people should be owning. I do not believe civilians require assault weapons, as they almost always bring more harm then good. If you own a gun for a sense of security, believe me, a normal handgun is more than enough.

I also believe that peogle should undergo psychological evaluations in order to legally own guns. Why arm people who are a possible danger to society, and even themselves? To me, that makes no sense.

If you have children, you should also have adequate storage and security for your gun, so that it does not fall into their hands.

With all of the horrible violent crimes you hear about involving these weapons, you would think people would want more stringent laws regarding guns, but no, you and I would be wrong.

As much as I would love to agree with you Ryukagoka [>>205] on the fact that one should go under some sort of psychological evaluation before they are allowed to own a gun but there are many flaws in such a plan. Despite how wonderful it sounds.

1) A psychological evaluation is thought to be a even more privacy invasion than the government possibly having data of every website you may have searched up as a psychological evaluation looks into the minds of the person. In other words, certain criteria must be met before the government would be allowed to conduce that level of testing.

2) Gun dealer's themselves do care WHAT one does with the fire arms they buy at their stores. They are only there for the profit so even if someone "off" were to come into and ask for a AK, the owner would still most likely give it to them. But I am not speaking on behalf of every and all gun dealer. This is just my own opinion.

3) The government wouldn't dare thing of enforcing these types of laws as they don't want to get into an argument where one can easily pull other their amendments. As the second amendment says "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." No government is going to think of getting into any store of Constitution battle as they would most likely lose.

But despite the 3 flaws that I listed, I do believe it would be a great idea for their to be some sort of testing before own is legally allowed to own a gun. Something that is designed some what like a driving test. Written then demonstrate. But that is just an idea. My apologizes for rambling.

The psych testing I was talking about is subjective. I believe it should only be performed if the person is formerly believed to be a threat (an ex con, previously on a no fly list/ terror watch list, has a history of violence, etc.) then a psych evaluation should be required.

Also, I think at an official shop, they have to run athe least a rudimentary background check, but I am not entirely sure. I know that at gun shows there are usually no background checks, but guns there are sold at extremely inflated prices, so that usually repels less determined buyers. Gun Shows should either be remade to require sellers to ask for some proof that they are fit to own a weapon, and require card transactions so that they are more easily traceable, or eliminate them all together, if they continue to threaten security.

Oh! >>208 It seems that I misunderstood. I thought you meant that everyone should be tested. Currently people are fighting that people on the no flight list are not allowed to own guns. I have also heard cases that people who have a assault records can not own a gun. They should run a careful background check and some do.

>>210 I agree completely.

Guys, My dad doesn't get why I'm so happy...and when he saw me logging into this website, he told me to explain what I was doing and I told him I was logging into a gang website and he got mad lulz!!

This is from the perspective of a person who is British, but in Britain there are certain laws on guns that means they need licences which are renewed and things like the bullets can't be kept within a certain distance of the gun itself. If this was in America it would cut down on all the bad gun related issues in America and leave the people who use the guns for slightly better reasons. I think an adapted version should be introduced to America.

>>213 should read this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom

Guns can save people but they can kill people. it depeendds on the people who get them.

^

^

^

^

This could be completely redundant, and I could be repeating someone else's already said words, but I'm seeing a lot of "extended background checks," and "restrictions to who should and shouldn't buy." I'm on the same page as you guys, but do you guys think like this because you think guns are handed out too easily?

Well, let's clear up some things here:
1. Having no guns doesn't work. (Chicago is a prominent example)
2. Having no restrictions on guns doesn't work either. (In the U.S. "If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit.")
I'd say we all agree on these two.
Do read these:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/
http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-5-myths-public-shootings-gun-control/

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

I believe we should have guns. Guns are fine as long as you don't mis-use them which obviously there will be that one person who will, but I'm smart enough to handle one. You need them in times of emergency and for all those hunters out there are essential.

bump

I believe that we should be able to have guns, but they should be kept at a place that watches who takes, and puts back their guns.
People just over use their right with guns, for guns should be for personal defense, not a killing machine aimed at innocent people.

I think, we better shouldn't have gun.

I bounce between the idea weather or not we should have guns.
I think we shouldn´t have guns because we don´t know who could lie about being good just so they could get a gun.
But I think we should have guns because we need to protect ourselves from people who might try to hurt us.

I think that in a country where the founders allowed people to have cannons without permits and you could by tanks until like 1980ish that had the cannon still attached that with reasonable restrictions guns should be allowed

Related discussion question: If you believe in the right to own a personal firearm, how do you feel about the right of citizens to own more serious weaponry? (think: bombs, tanks, grenades, etc.) What about weaponry related to chemical or nuclear warfare?

This is an example from a fictional story, but it made sense. The city it took place in didn't have guns, but they made a law on weapons that said the citizens couldn't own weapons without permission, which was difficult to get, but this didn't work. That's because all the law abiding citizens obeyed but the non law abiding citizens didn't, so the citizens who followed the law couldn't protect themselves against those who didn't. But I do think regulations are important, like education (for those who want guns) on how to use them safely and take care of them properly. Maybe there would be something like you have to renew the permit or whatever every so often, so you remember all this stuff (like a test). This is just a random thought though so

Bump

Reply to Anon:We do have restrictions on guns. Please look at 222 for my stance.

Reply to Aiko:Exactly. Some restrictions on guns work(in the U.S.). And we do have some. But making it so very little citizens have guns, doesn't work in the U.S. because there is a flood of guns country wide. Please look at 22 for my stance.

Pro-gun argument's good and all, but are there actually cases where civilians who own firearms are able to protect themselves?
Like, you wouldn't be exactly walking around carrying guns, and random shootings usually happen when you're out on a walk anyway.
So wouldn't owning guns only work to create that safety feeling?
That is to say, there are more benefits in firearm regulations to prevent accident rather than allowing free circulation to create safety bubbles?

Bump

Bump

I personally think that America should adopt Canada's policy and just make guns illegal to the public. It's great security but there're too many safety hazards with guns and not enough ways that keep us safe. Plus, regardless of how clean someone's background check is, you never know if the gun-owner or the people around them are responsible or sane

Well, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is what people always bring up when defending the "right" to own guns... but even Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it, said that laws and policies need to be updated every so often.

His full statement was that: "while I do not advocate frequent changes in laws and institutions, these two things must advance with the progress of the human mind.

We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fit him as a boy, to remain ever under the ways of our barbarous ancestors."

Even HE knew we'd have to change things eventually.

1 amount of guns, 2 outlawing guns, 3 background checks, 4 change of law, 5 one reason citizens are allowed to have guns. Here's the thing, that sounds great in theory. No one has guns. The reality is that it doesn't work.
Amount of guns
"According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all." America has around 321 million people. There's also the amount of guns crossing America's borders.

Outlawing guns doesn't make the situation better.
Yes, it's sad to see people commit violence. It makes more sense for a citizen to be able to legally protect themselves. Even if you implement a gun ban, disarming citizens, the criminals would be the ones having the guns. There is typically a spike in murders after a gun ban, and then it goes back down to the rate it was before the ban. If you're trying to stop violence, a gun ban is not the way to go. Education, poverty, and desensitization of violence are larger problems.

Background checks
Yes. What's your point? U.S.A. does have background checks, and they do make it less likely for someone who is a irresponsible to get a gun. There's no gun show loophole to exploit like some people have said.

Change of law
Yes, Jefferson did say that. Some law change to make things better. You have not presented anything to support changing the laws on guns.

One of the reasons citizens are allowed to have guns
Being able to overthrow the government is something the FFs were concerned with. Tyranny and no representation, are the major reason America split off.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Citizens defending themselves
1. On January 4, a 65-year-old Manchester, New Hampshire, grandmother used a gun for self-defense after being followed home from the gas station around 11:30 pm. The grandmother was on her way home from work when she stopped at the station, and she noticed a car following her. When she pulled into her parking garage, the car pulled in behind her, and a tall male exited the vehicle then stood between the grandmother and the only path she had to her apartment. He allegedly demanded her purse then reached out to grab her arm. At that point, she shot him. WFEA Radio quoted the grandmother saying her gun is “always locked and loaded.”
2. On January 22, a barber and a barbershop customer opened fire on two armed menwho allegedly entered the Columbia, South Carolina, Next Up Barber and Beauty shop to rob customers. One of the permit holders was Master Barber Elmurray Bookman and the other was a customer sitting in a barber chair. Bookman told WLTX that one of the masked men asked the unidentified customer for money, and the customer told him it was over by another chair. When the men moved toward the other chair to retrieve the money, the customer opened fire and Bookman opened fire as well. The Columbia Police Department reported that one of the two masked men fled the business after being shot “multiple times.” Police discovered his body outside.
3. On February 14, an Ontario, California, homeowner shot and killed an alleged intruder “during a short struggle” in the entryway of the home. The incident occurred about 5 a.m., and the Los Angeles Times reported that the homeowner’s wife called 911 to say “her husband opened fire on a man who was trying to forcibly enter their home.” When police arrived, they found the suspect — a 26-year-old Los Angeles man — dead in the home’s entryway.
4. On February 22, a 71-year-old homeowner fired three rounds at an alleged home intruder, striking the suspect twice in the chest. The homeowner, Tony Pitts, is a disabled gentleman who lives in Hickory, North Carolina. WSOC TV reported that Pitts was lying in bed when he heard knocks at the front door. He did not answer because it was so late, but he was soon drawn out of bed by the sound of shattering glass. Pitts said, “I’m disabled and somebody kicks the door in, I got to do something.” He allegedly saw the suspect coming through the door and he fired three rounds, striking the would-be intruder twice and ending the incident. The suspect survived and was arrested.
5. On March 8, a 65-year-old homeowner on a dialysis machine pulled a gun to prevent a would-be home invader from entering his apartment. Fox 35 quoted deputies who said the suspect allegedly “cut open a screen door and entered the [would-be] victim’s place through a patio.” At that point, the resident picked up his dialysis machine and his gun, walked over to the window, and tapped on the glass with gun. The resident said, “Just wanted to let him know, I’ve got a gun.” The would-be intruder got the message and fled the scene.
6. On March 12, a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed a man who was allegedly swinging a hatchet at customers and a store clerk in a Seattle-area 7-Eleven. According to Q13 Fox, the “store clerk says the masked man entered the store and immediately started swinging a hatchet toward a customer — then he turned his sights on the clerk.” The clerk was struck in the stomach and suffered “minor injuries” before the attack was stopped by an armed customer who shot the suspect. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.
7. On March 17, a man eating a sandwich in a Whataburger parking lot opened fire on two suspects who allegedly tried to rob him. The San Antonio Express reported that one of the suspects was killed and police confirmed that the deceased suspect “did have a pistol.”
8. On March 31, an elderly man on oxygen opened fire on two suspects who allegedly invaded his home to steal narcotics. According to the Daily Journal, two men came to the elderly man’s home in Washington County, Missouri. One of the two was known to the elderly man, the second of the two was wearing a mask. The two men allegedly accosted the elderly man and threw him across the couch, and he landed very near the place where he keeps his gun. He was able to grab it and open fire, critically wounding one of the two suspects. Both suspects fled the scene after shots were fired.
9. On April 20, a Stanton, Kentucky, man violated a protective order to confront his girlfriend and died when she opened fire with a shotgun. WKYT quoted Kentucky State Police who said 32-year-old “Steven Strange confronted 32-year-old Melissa Roberts inside her Stanton home.” Roberts responded by shooting Strange in the chest with a 12-gauge shotgun. Roberts faced no charges for the shooting.
10. On April 27, an 11-year-old homeschool student opened fire on a burglary suspect, striking him in the leg. The incident occurred in Talladega, Alabama. According to WVTM 13, the boy said the robbery suspect was “crying like a baby” after being shot.

What if guns were fitted with GPS locators, fingerprint scanners to identify it's owner, and whenever fired it immediately alerts police like a phone call. Would that help reduce the likely hood of improper usage? Eventually old guns would have to be phased out or converted. I dunno if we have the tech or if it would help, but I'm from Chicago and I definitley see shootings being an issue. I'm not against guns, or for them.

To Vin
It's an idea. But it's unrealistic. The price of the gun would without a doubt be expensive. And so would not be bought. Outlawing all guns without that tech would not work. And anyone committing a crime, could find several ways around it. Jammers, gloves, etc. could be used by criminals without too much effort. And yes, the shootings in Chicago are an issue, but the solution you suggested would not work.

Lucre.
What about tape?

Why is this on Main?

Please put this on news

/sage

This post is from 2013, has well over 200 responses, and, I believe, falls under the "actual topics of discussion" described by the main board guideline.

I'm sorry, but... WHY WOULD YOU OPEN THIS DEBATE! Didn't you think, maybe, just maybe, there might be a reason that there wasn't a gun control thread.
Oh well, since it's here I'll put in my two cents. Regardless of weather or not there is a law keeping people from getting guns, they'll get them anyway. Just like Prohibition, they'll just buy them illegally. Any law abiding citizen will be unarmed in a long range fight, whereas any criminal will have hand guns or maybe even military grade guns. The criminals won't stop just because you ask them to, and you can't catch all of them. Anyone who thinks that gun control could work simply hasn't thought it through.

If I where in the Naritaverus i would defiantly be a SJW Bernie supporter that constantly shits on NASCAR for being dumb and football for being violent, shit like that. I'd also get in Facebook wars constantly and use every chance I get to shit on /pol/. But in an arc when the fair trade coffee shop I frequent gets robbed by armed criminals, after exclaiming that "guns are only raise the rate of violent crime in the us" and "the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution is not to be interpreted the way it is" I'd then pull a machine gun out of my ass and mow down everyone else while getting shot repeatedly in the lungs, but not noticing because I'm blood crazy right now. Then it cuts to my back story. I was so enamored with justice I went to Cuba or the middle east or some shit to fight as a revolutionary toppling oppressive dictators, but then ran out of money so he had to go get a real job and has lived quietly ever since.

The point I'm getting at is guns are fucking cool, but useless for the civilians to have.

bump

To SatoshiUSA ? Tape? As in a way to circumvent the gun tech?
To Tenebris I agree overall.
To Sharo Please look at 244

Maybe the Japanese have got this right one :P

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729

Bump

Bump

Repeating this lol.

Related discussion question: If you believe in the right to own a personal firearm, how do you feel about the right of citizens to own more serious weaponry? (think: bombs, tanks, grenades, etc.) What about weaponry related to chemical or nuclear warfare?

>>258
A small shotgun or whatever is perfectly logical in my opinion. But having 50 AK's and automatic's screams danger to not just the "bad people" but to everyone, including the owner. Also, many dangerous chemicals are very easy to create on top of your kitchen stove if you wish, there's no really stopping that. I feel that anyone who is maniacal and smart enough to think of using chemical/nuclear warfare is already on the watch list

^

Bump

Bump

I agree with Adrian. In the U.S.A., if I remember correctly, people get max a semi-automatic, in some states, you can't get some semi auto weapons. If you want a (deadly) weapon, you don't go to your local gun dealer, you go to your cleaning closet and to your grocery store. It's ridiculously to do make something harmful, and I don't think outlawing guns or limiting guns will help limit deaths, casualties, or stop those attempting to hurt others.

Now I may be wrong but, I don't believe that's true, Lucre. In the UK, guns are completely banned. Because of that, the rate for school shootings ( and things related to that ) are a lot lower than America's.

Is it because guns are banned in U.K, there are less? Or are there other factors?
A gun ban would not work in or help America, from possible civil war, high costs, little border control, and the large amount of gangs which would keep their weapons.
America can not realistically get rid of the guns they have(there are more guns then citizens).
In regards to stopping shootings, most guns used are bought legally or stolen.
To potentially make a difference you would have to ban all guns.
In 2014(U.S.), there were 8124 deaths by guns, 5562 were by hand guns.
Also, taking guns away in some cases have deaths increased or continued without little change after a certain period(a sharp spike, then the before rate).

Some good discussion here! I'd like to add something that hasn't been mentioned yet that would be super helpful for catching people who commit crimes with guns, and discouraging them from doing so!

We have the technology to add "taggants" to gunpowder and other explosives. They are tiny pieces of plastic that when investigated closely are unique to that particular batch of explosives, which can then be used to identify where it was made, who sold it, and when.

This has already been hugely successful in helping solve crimes in other places, like Switzerland. It's obviously not a solve-all-the-problems solution, but it is an easy solution to some of the problems. The issue is that with all the backlash against gun control in the US, no gunpowder/explosive company wants to add taggants anymore. I think it's very sensible to have the government mandate taggants be put in explosives.

Here are a couple articles about the subject:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/08/06/42124.htm
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/20/1203497/-Did-the-NRA-block-the-use-Explosive-Taggant-Technology

Bump

(๑•̀ㅁ•́ฅ✧ Bump!

massbump of discussion

massbump