[Discussion] Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

[NarutoDKurosaki]

The sad thing about this is that you probably know several firearm owners and interact with them on a regular basis each and every day.

Why do you think that "having guns means you will be foolish?" Because most firearm owners are responsible to the point that they are not going to get someone killed (though I will admit that quite a few do not properly store their firearms for their household... too many will store a firearm as if he/she is the only one in the house long after a wife/husband and kids are involved). You don't realize they are firearm owners because they aren't gunning down everything in their path.

Which seems to be the image the media wants to paint these days: "But there was another side to [individual]... she was a gun enthusiast and regularly visited the shooting range. None of her neighbors realized just what kind of woman she was. A room in her home was lined with various assault weapons she kept on display."

Yet the 'crazy lady with all the weapons' was not the one who flipped out and killed people. Granted - she exercised poor discretion in allowing her son access to those firearms... but how many parents allow their kids access to alcohol and vehicles (in the same night)?

People will error and there is nothing that can be done about this... spare shackling everyone up and throwing them into a cell where they are force-fed and given intravenous hydration. That is the only way everyone can be fully free from harm so that they may enjoy life.



There are more firearms in the U.S. than there are registered vehicles being operated by fully government licensed individuals.

Guess which one kills more people.



So does someone trying to protect themselves with a knife. What's your point?



Pandora's Box.

That said... it doesn't really matter what we humans create or discover - there are people in this world who realize that it merely takes the will to use the advantages they have to exploit others. People are, to some degree or another, sheep (at least in certain aspects of their life). You go about trusting in the herd.

But it really only takes one of them to become a wolf - to realize that a little force... be it threat of contract termination, threat of death, destruction of property, public humiliation... any kind of advantage - can be used to exploit and restrict that other person's behavior or earnings. You won't give me preferential treatment? Sexual harassment charge. The rumors alone will destabilize your reputation. You want to run a business... that's fine - but there are some rough types around here that will rough up your shop... unless you pay us to protect you, that is. We offer a quite valuable service to the community for a nominal fee.

Someone could easily develop a 'gun' to protect his/her community from thugs. Wouldn't be but a few years later and the thugs would be running around with 'guns.'

I suggest you look into the Red Queen Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

Basically... we are in direct competition with each other for resources that make our offspring more competitive. It even underlies our psychology. It's a simple concept that can apply to even very complex systems (such as society). Just as we have viruses that infect organisms... we have 'viruses' that infect society. Ideologies that sap the resources of a society for its own replication.

Most forms of criminal behavior are a sort of social virus.

Our own society is going to end up collapsing before too much longer because the life of a virus is considered equal to the life of a functional cell. We've failed to develop lymphocytes and antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification... and it's going to destroy us.

But it will be amusing to watch.

woah

[Micho22]

It shoud be forbidden
Do you already forget what happened in the school so many children where killed and why because it is legit in the usa that every psychopath can own a gun

[YowYan]

It shoud be forbidden
Do you already forget what happened in the school so many children where killed and why because it is legit in the usa that every psychopath can own a gun

psychotic drugs killed people. Not guns.

[Algalon]

answer honestly: why most of the countries around the world (countries in europe, japan, ...) have about 1% (or whatever, way less than the us anyway ...) of the vistims that the us has?
a) because they have gun control
b) because americans are stupid enough to just go out one day and shoot ppl around them, well stupider compared to ppl in the other countries i mentioned ...

i personally believe its a but i dont know about you guys, however its got to be one or the other

PS: yes yes, the democratic countries in Europe (some even more democratic than the US) are living proof that gun control by the state equals tyranny

[Aim64C]

Honestly, I don't know why I bother, anymore.

answer honestly: why most of the countries around the world (countries in europe, japan, ...) have about 1% (or whatever, way less than the us anyway ...) of the vistims that the us has?

Depends upon how you classify "victim" (of firearm violence).

Classic anti-2nd amendment lobbies like to quote the firearm related death statistic (about 30,000 annually - slightly lower than the average number of motor-vehicle related deaths) and throw it around as if this is how many people are shooting each other.

The truth is a little less glamorous. For the past four years, the annual firearm -homicide- in the U.S. has been under 10,000 individuals. The other 20,000 are suicides.

Now, that sounds like "a lot" of people - and it is. However, the U.S. also has a population of over 380,000,000. Per capita - our homicides are only marginally larger than those of most European nations. Which means that the relative percentage of people who manage to kill another person is not that much greater here than it is in many other parts of the world.

But there is, however, something of a "secret:" http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...united-states/

To quote:

"Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned."

Of course, how are these reported in those nations?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Events like these are not documented the same in Europe as they are in the U.S. These are not "firearm homicides" but "casualties of terrorism."

Which is not an inaccurate term - it's just that they are excluded from the statistics people are most frequently exposed to and concerned about.

Which highlights a cultural difference between the U.S. and many European nations: Politically motivated violence is, ironically enough, far more common in Europe. Europe is the scene of church denominations literally at war with each other (something Americans cannot conceive - our "denominational warfare" is changing our hymnal around to not include any songs the baptists are singing). Individuals committing violent acts often assign them to some political cause or another (and there's no shortage of opinionated groups to affiliate with).

Which is why they get reported as being part of domestic terrorism.

Another example: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/world/...ce-solo-terror

This is nothing new in Europe with its much longer and more fragmented history and deeper-running grudges (that make the south vs north rivalries in the U.S. look like a civil discussion).

a) because they have gun control
b) because americans are stupid enough to just go out one day and shoot ppl around them, well stupider compared to ppl in the other countries i mentioned ...

i personally believe its a but i dont know about you guys, however its got to be one or the other

PS: yes yes, the democratic countries in Europe (some even more democratic than the US) are living proof that gun control by the state equals tyranny

You know... 33,000 people died this year because you wanted to drive yourself 3 miles to work.

If people would just use public transport and get off this selfish high-horse of "I deserve a motor vehicle to drive" - perhaps we would have fewer deaths.

Or - and here's a fun one... http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

"(Alcohol Mortality 2009) "In 2009, a total of 24,518 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 10, 12, and 13). This category includes deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, and also includes accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use, as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome (for a list of alcohol-induced causes, see ‘‘Technical Notes’’)."

Alcohol is single-handedly responsible for more deaths (from overdose, alone) than firearm suicide.

And, as the note so kindly states... that doesn't include "induced" deaths (drunk behavior causing people to get killed or FAS).

Which is why I sneer with soul-crushing contempt at the way our society idolizes drinking and alcohol consumption. It's one thing to use it in moderation - but it's obviously not being used in moderation.

And, yet, 'guns are the problem.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_821900.html

.... I cannot believe creatures supposedly sharing substantial portions of my genetic code worship a substance responsible for killing them by the millions each year.

It is unfortunate that there is not a bath strong enough to purge my blood line of this species' failure.

[NarutoDKurosaki]

psychotic drugs killed people. Not guns.

It wasn't drugs, that man had serious mental issues his whole life.

[YowYan]

[NarutoDKurosaki]

gotta love Uncle Ted. To bad he comes off as an ******* on TV because i've met him and he's a damn nice guy.

[YowYan]

gotta love Uncle Ted. To bad he comes off as an ******* on TV because i've met him and he's a damn nice guy.

Yeah ;p well he's straight to the point. Also, that deluded british tea-slurping pierce morgan just can't get to him

[Darthlawsuit]

Anti-gun supporters are uneducated. Only a fool blames inanimate objects for their problems. Blame the people not the object.

[AkatsukiKoneko]

I don't think it's a good idea, i think there should be restrictions on items purchased such as types of guns that would not be necessary. The selling of weapons should be monitored more closely, but criminals will have the guns and items they want no matter what the law is, the good people that need them for defense in turn wouldn't though.

[Darthlawsuit]

I don't think it's a good idea, i think there should be restrictions on items purchased such as types of guns that would not be necessary. The selling of weapons should be monitored more closely, but criminals will have the guns and items they want no matter what the law is, the good people that need them for defense in turn wouldn't though.

We have that. In order to have certain high caliber rapid fire guns you have to have special licenses. You can own a machine gun but the FBI is going to look into a whole lot before you can even get it.

We have a national background check but many are NOT required to report all issues to it. Many murders, thieves, and mentally ill are not even in the national background check so it would approve them for guns. They aren't working because congress passes laws but doesn't fund them so they only hurt legal citizens. We have a LOT of gun laws on the books right now that no one follows because no one funds them. More laws won't help if we won't enforce our current ones.

[Vanderfee]

For the sake of the society's safety...I'm against it. People need to be more independent. Forget guns but go with fists.

Less invasions, more equations.

[Darthlawsuit]

For the sake of the society's safety...I'm against it. People need to be more independent. Forget guns but go with fists.

Less invasions, more equations.

It is actually safe for society. When the criminals have guns they have power. When Citizens have guns they are equals to the criminals and outnumber them so criminals lose their power. Criminals are out to kill/rob/rape/etc and you have to be able to stop them. However it would be nice if criminals were only armed with fists.

In Switzerland, where most everyone has and carries guns around, very few crimes are committed with guns because it is far too dangerous to be a criminal with a gun in Switzerland. They prefer knives as they don't get shot as much then . One of their last mass murders occurred in one of the few no-gun zone they had in the country, in their parliament.

Hum.... If guns prevent just one invasion they would pay for themselves in saved lives.

Heres some video for thought:

[Black Adam]

It was never about outright abolishing guns but it's just become one the amendments that's being exploited for all the wrong reasons...why does any private citizen need an AR? I get hunting rifles to an extent I'm all for the Bill of Rights but common sense is in order come on!

[Darthlawsuit]

It was never about outright abolishing guns but it's just become one the amendments that's being exploited for all the wrong reasons...why does any private citizen need an AR? I get hunting rifles to an extent I'm all for the Bill of Rights but common sense is in order come on!

No one has assault Rifles. Assault Rifles haven't been sold to civilians for decades. Don't listen to the media as they have no clue what an assault rifle is. They cannot even get the terms clip and magazine correct -_-;;

Watch this video for some facts:

[Aim64C]

It was never about outright abolishing guns but it's just become one the amendments that's being exploited for all the wrong reasons...why does any private citizen need an AR? I get hunting rifles to an extent I'm all for the Bill of Rights but common sense is in order come on!

Why does a 4'8 cute-as-a-button girl weighing as much as my thigh need to drive a double-axle Ford truck with an engine that must have come out of a diesel locomotive? I'm exaggerating a tad on the engine - but I've seen it.

All hell would break loose if we actually required people to justify their vehicle purchases or enacted a law that imposed a speed limit in the car's electronics system (that can be done, quite easily, by the way). Why, pray tell, does anyone need a vehicle that can break 85 miles an hour?

Think of the costs these things impose. Criminals and heavy-footed fools can fly down the interstate at over 100 miles an hour... and if the police want a hope in the world of catching them - they need to have vehicles that can travel a healthy margin faster... those are high-performance vehicles that come at a high cost to state and local governments. Not only that - but the faster vehicles are going, the more likely traffic fatalities and injuries are (increasing costs to insurance and medical systems that are now being propped up by the government, thus justifying laws to reduce government expenses... which is why I'm against government involvement in those sectors, but I can't deny the reality that ruining everyone's fun would reduce costs).

An "AR" - or, in my case, the 6.8mm ACR I am trying to get an order for, is no different than a performance vehicle that people are allowed to buy. It's blatantly capable of doing many illegal things, and less than 0.1% of everyone who owns one has a legitimate -need- for it.

But I've seen Spyders and other such sports cars being passed on the highway by some Prius in a hurry. Hell - I've seen them backing traffic up on the highway, before, going under the speed limit (obviously not because they lack the capability).

Likewise, I can keep my fancy rifle stored away with all of its unnecessary, excessive features, and use it responsibly at a firing range or in proper hunting settings.

Unless you honestly want to sit here and try to defend the common sense of people buying cars that go fast enough to cause cars traveling in the same direction (and lane) to quite literally explode from the force of an impact, alone. And then try and say: "It's their right to buy a car..." - when the Constitution says, quite plainly, that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. That means that right will not be shortened, curtailed, trimmed, slimmed, or any other synonym you can fit in there. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to pass more restrictive bans (technically, the previous 'assault weapons ban' was unconstitutional and lay outside the authority of the office signing it).

If you chuckle-heads get to take away "assault weapons" - I get to take away sports cars. Any car caught speeding on the highway will be immediately engaged by Cobra or Apache gunships - a single AGM-144 Hell Fire will permanently render the vehicle inoperable. The police force can be equipped with Corollas or something and just defer high-speed chases to Predator drones. The driver poses an imminent danger to the U.S. and qualifies under the current drone policy constructed by this presidential administration for elimination by precision ordnance.

Hey, if I have to live in a draconian fascist world... I at least want to have some fun killing people doing blatantly stupid things. Don't take that away from me, too.

[RasenUchihaChaos]

they say only people with mental issues will kill others with guns thats BS all of u could have a family memeber nice guy or strict about things then he might get so pissed off and shoot someone

[NarutoDKurosaki]

Anti-gun supporters are uneducated. Only a fool blames inanimate objects for their problems. Blame the people not the object.

You make a good point

[Syareoo]

yes gun control is good
I think if someone using a gun it makes them look weak

[Aim64C]

they say only people with mental issues will kill others with guns thats BS all of u could have a family memeber nice guy or strict about things then he might get so pissed off and shoot someone

Healthy people can enter unhealthy and destructive states of mind for a time period long enough to cause irrepairable damage.

Here's the thing. I will never store a loaded firearm. The closest I will ever be to this is carrying a loaded magazine on my person with my rifle (or handgun) stored separately from my stock(s) of ammunition. Should trouble rear its head - I can be ready to go in a relatively short order (while also rendering the firearm useless to anyone who may get a hold of it without authorization). That same "short order," though, is longer than the usual amount of time it takes to recover rational thought from a rage-induced state of mind.

Meaning that if I end up "getting pissed and killing someone" - they did something the likes of which I've never dealt with before, or that I had weighed the options and made the conscious decision to hunt them down and kill them.

None of which is really relevant to "why people shouldn't have firearms."

Because I, again, ask why it should be possible for people to drive around 1 ton chunks of steel and aluminum with an average of 15 gallons of incendiary liquid and engines powerful enough to drive these rolling missiles in speeds excess of 180 miles an hour.

[Aim64C]

yes gun control is good
I think if someone using a gun it makes them look weak

I think practically and efficiently.

What matters is who survives. If I come to blows with you in the street - it's no different to me than if you were pointing a firearm in my face. The two situations are identical and I will utilize everything in my disposal to end the engagement with as little risk and injury to myself.

Because if it comes to that - you are threatening my life and existence. It's not about sportsmanship or macho expressions. It's about survival.

[Zero Kelvin]

There was a man not too long ago whose children were having a sleepover or something, so there were a bunch of kids in the house. Three armed robbers entered the house and basically had a shoot on sight policy. The father had a firearm though, he did get shot, but currently one of the robbers is dead and the other two hospitalized with him. The man saved his family because he had a gun.

The two largest massacres on record were done with gasoline and the other a knife. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

With guns.

[Solaris Vexius]

Never heard an intelligent argument for gun bans

[NarutoDKurosaki]

Never heard an intelligent argument for gun bans

Are you for or against? Whats your argument?