So, to the anti-gun crowd...

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The question I have and will always have: Who the f*ck needs an AK47 or an Uzi or a high powered semi automatic weapon to shoot wabbits?
I think people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't understand why most of you are so passionate when it comes to restricting guns that can maim and kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with recreation or hunting, nothing at all.

It has everything to do with civic duty, willing and able bodied citizens ready to defend oneself, neighbor, and country from aggressors, be they foriegn countries at war or private individual criminals, and to ensure a 4th check and balance in our government.

You think the second amendment is about hunting and I'm just a crazy lunatic? Hear it from some of those who had an influence in it's writing:


"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

-- John Adams.


Think "arms" should be limited only to BB guns and sporks and think we dont "need" AK-47s and Uzi's and therefore shouldn't be allowed to have them? Think again.


"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American? The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

-- Tench Coxe, 1775

Nowhere in statements like these is deer and duck ever mentioned, nor target shooting, etc. Statements like these freeze the blood of the most anti-gun politicians, because they DO understand the true purpose behind the right to bear arms. They are not as stupid as they make out to be.

The other half of the equation is the fact that our country's economic system is not based on what particular individuals or groups decide what we "need", rather we are free to pursue pretty much whatever we feel like it provided we don't infringe upon others. I decide for myself what I need or want, regardless of your opionions and your own needs and wants. If someone who is of age of responsibility and not a felon wants an AK-47, not only is that their protected right, it is also their money and their business and I could care less what they do with it as long as they are not breaking laws.

The bottom line and one of the most consequential fallacies of the anti gun movement with regard to the need of certain weapons, is that it tramples on a fundamental freedom of the American foundation; that of which is understood to be that nobody is required to justify or qualify their needs to anyone else, esp. an authority. This is akin to the left wing thinking such as "I don't want or need (or most likely can't afford) a nice or expensive car/house/etc, so nobody else should need it either!!", espeicially when the true motif is intentionally disguised by other political issues such as the environment.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

While sensible, it must be noted that it's only people with documented illnesses. What about the psychopath who's never sought help?

Either way, whether you believe tighter control of lethal weapons is a breach of 'freedom*' or not, the fact is the US is forced to allow pretty much everyone to own a gun with very little training because of the number of weapons going about in circulation. There's no way it would be possible to try and reduce the number of guns going about as they'd be screwed with the whole 'only outlaws have guns' scenario.

I go back to my earlier analogy likening the gun laws in the US to handing everyone a knife as they pass through airport security in case someone has smuggled a knife in (unless of course you've been caught trying to stab someone before, then you're not allowed one).
Now that everyone on the plane has a knife you can't ask for them back as the law-abiders wouldn't trust the crims to return theirs.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The question I have and will always have: Who the f*ck needs an AK47 or an Uzi or a high powered semi automatic weapon to shoot wabbits?
I think people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't understand why most of you are so passionate when it comes to restricting guns that can maim and kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

There is a misconception floating around about the weapons you mentioned - most AK47s are semi-auto, leaving them no different than a typical semi-auto rifle (SKS, Ruger Mini-14/Mini-30, etc). Uzis are 9mm, which is one of the most common handgun calibers.

My Ruger 10/22 target rifle can maim and kill a lot of people in a short period of time..and it's probably has a significant accuracy edge over an Uzi. Just because 'bad guys' have certain guns in movies doesn't make said guns much different than any other.

A baseball bat can maim and kill many people in a short amount of time as well.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Painkiller

Yes blaming an inanimate object for the intentions of men is absurd. Making it easier for mentally unstable men to obtain fire arms is even more absurd.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental illness to buy a gun. People with documented mental illnesses are databased, and found in instant background checks at purchase.

While sensible, it must be noted that it's only people with documented illnesses. What about the psychopath who's never saught help?

Either way, whether you believe tighter control of lethal weapons is a breach of 'freedom*' or not, the fact is the US is forced to allow pretty much everyone to own a gun with very little training because of the number of weapons going about in circulation. There's no way it would be possible to try and reduce the number of guns going about as they'd be screwed with the whole 'only outlaws have guns' scenario.

I go back to my earlier analogy likening the gun laws in the US to handing everyone a knife as they pass through airport security in case someone has smuggled a knife in (unless of course you've been caught trying to stab someone before, then you're not allowed one).
Now that everyone on the plane has a knife you can't ask for them back as the law-abiders wouldn't trust the crims to return theirs.

It is illegal for the government to outlaw guns on planes, and that is one of the restorations of our rights that I am firmly supportive of.

Understand that should anyone be allowed to take guns onto planes, certainly terrorists will have an easier time getting guns onto planes and most certainly a group of terrorists intent on hijacking a plane will kill people with those guns, but how many will die in the initial confusion before the other 200 people on that plane fight back and kill the terrorists? Whether or not people will die is irrelevant, as the law abiding don't make that choice. Being forced a choice by those outside law and order, would you rather 10 people shot to death and 5 terrorists dead, or 3000 people dead and a city destroyed?

People die, that's life, and being overly sensitive to death and wishing nobody would ever die is unrealistic. This is an unfortuneate reality that comes from the fact that the bad guys always have the initiative, and even if everyone was armed, innocent people will still die. All you can do is make the best of any given situation and strive for the lowest number of innocent lives lost, and certainly that is an easier goal to attain when civilized people are armed and willing to put aside moral inhibitions, if only until the crisis passes.

The difference between good and evil is that evil is bad all the time. Good knows and understands evil, and is capable of assuming evil as needed for the good of humanity. The critical difference is after crisis has passed, those of good yearn for and return to civilized life of their own free will knowing all the while they are capable of commiting evils. As I've said before in another way, the true test of a person's character is when that person knows both good and evil but chooses out of free will to be good, even in the absence of consequences.

 

[Insomniak]

Dear Gun Control Wacko Morons:


Gun Control is probably the stupidest idea ever. You can't legislate lawbreakers. People who do not live in accordance with the law do not care if it is illegal to own guns. The old adage "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." is the truth. Wake up people.

Furthermore, the right of the people to own firearms is clearly stated in the Constitution of the United States of America. If you don't like it, pity poo, go live somewhere else. There is a process in place for changing the constitution, and it is very difficult, for the express purpose of preventing fringe nutjob groups like gun control activists from imposing their will on a largely unwilling nation.

Fact: Owning guns is legal.
Fact: Legally owned and registered firearms are used in a MINISCULE PORTION of gun crime each year. Most gun crime is perpetrated by those who own illegal firearms.

Thus

Fact: Since most gun crime is committed by those who illegally own/own illegal weapons, making more weapons illegal is CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO HAVE AN AFFECT ON GUN CRIME.


So give up on the idea already. Think a little. It won't hurt that much, trust me. It's called personal responsibility. Instead of whining and waiting for the government to try and protect you, learn how to responsibly own a firearm yourself, and then simply shoot the next bastard that tries to rape your children. It's very effective.

As an additional bonus, you'll have some sort of personal protection should those morons in the federal government (from both parties - I am not affiliated with either) get any ideas.

 

[Vic]

Despite all their bumper stickers to the contrary, whacko liberals don't think. They feel. Everything is all about emotion with them, not thought. The bleeding heart that defies even the most basic common sense and historical evidence. It's why they are so easily led on a string by propaganda. Problem-reaction-solution. "Gun crimes are terrible! I know, we'll take guns from everyone. I never liked those icky things anyway."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Vic
Despite all their bumper stickers to the contrary, whacko liberals don't think. They feel. Everything is all about emotion with them, not thought. The bleeding heart that defies even the most basic common sense and historical evidence. It's why they are so easily led on a string by propaganda. Problem-reaction-solution. "Gun crimes are terrible! I know, we'll take guns from everyone. I never liked those icky things anyway."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

Right Wing retards have just as many problems in that area as Liberal commies. Take for instance almost any position the far right has on Abortion, Religion in Government/Schools, and Gay Marriage. All based in emotion and not on sound thought process.

The more accurate statement would be that *any extremists* on *either side* don't think, they just kneejerk against anything that doesn't support their fringe view.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Vic
Despite all their bumper stickers to the contrary, whacko liberals don't think. They feel. Everything is all about emotion with them, not thought. The bleeding heart that defies even the most basic common sense and historical evidence. It's why they are so easily led on a string by propaganda. Problem-reaction-solution. "Gun crimes are terrible! I know, we'll take guns from everyone. I never liked those icky things anyway."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

Right Wing retards have just as many problems in that area as Liberal commies. Take for instance almost any position the far right has on Abortion, Religion in Government/Schools, and Gay Marriage. All based in emotion and not on sound thought process.

The more accurate statement would be that *any extremists* on *either side* don't think, they just kneejerk against anything that doesn't support their fringe view.

Oh I agree. Except your extremists on either side argument smacks of false dilemma. This isn't a problem with only 2 solutions. My opinion about these particular extremists from these particular 2 sides is that they both feel the same emotions, but use different symbols when representing those emotions to themselves. They're still not thinking either. I wasn't implying otherwise. It's just you don't see the bleeding heart super-emotional anti-drug pro-lifer putting a bumper sticker on their car that says, "Fear me, I think" when it is obvious that their politics are about emotion and not logical thought. At least I've never seen it.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Vic
Despite all their bumper stickers to the contrary, whacko liberals don't think. They feel. Everything is all about emotion with them, not thought. The bleeding heart that defies even the most basic common sense and historical evidence. It's why they are so easily led on a string by propaganda. Problem-reaction-solution. "Gun crimes are terrible! I know, we'll take guns from everyone. I never liked those icky things anyway."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

Right Wing retards have just as many problems in that area as Liberal commies. Take for instance almost any position the far right has on Abortion, Religion in Government/Schools, and Gay Marriage. All based in emotion and not on sound thought process.

The more accurate statement would be that *any extremists* on *either side* don't think, they just kneejerk against anything that doesn't support their fringe view.

Lol nice counter!

I tend to think of myself as conservative, but the very issues you listed are sore spots with me:

abortion - While I don't support it unconditionally "just because I want to", I firmly believe we should have the right to terminate pregnancy in the event of rape, severe biological mishaps, etc. If we were having a child without arms and legs or eyes, i.e. anything I would not want for myself, I would not hesitate in ending it for the sake of that child. Saying it's wrong and immoral is to be selfish; I would gladly get off the moral high horse and suffer the possible guilt for the rest of my life, rather than allow a child to come to life that way. I can't stand people who would allow others to suffer for the sake of their own moral satisfaction. There is a fine line between tolerance of "everybody is special" and blatant biological errors. Hell being killed before you're even self aware might be a good alternative to the living conditions imposed by teen pregnancies and ghetto building, instead of being forced to endure the rejection, abuse, humiliation, foster homes, etc that no child should ever endure because of someone elses irresponsibility. That said, it should be done as soon as possible before concious and recognizable human life manifests, and certainly not allowed late term as in "oh I changed my mind". I don't buy the whole "every cell is sacred" thing at all. The people that say that should be aware that they commit genocide every time they take a shower.

religion - I despise religion as it is the antithesis of logic and reason, driving people to commit numerous acts, sometimes good but mostly bad, some threatening to others, without asking questions or thinking twice all in the name of blind faith. In short it is the number one cause of today's problems of people not being able to think for themselves and it fosters herd mentality, which I find repulsive. However I will respect people's freedom of religion as I do the right to bear arms, as long as they don't infringe on me or interfere with government, etc. I also understand certain concepts like "God" in the pledge, the declaration of Independance, "In God We Trust", etc, have traditions and implications for all walks of life that go well beyond any particular religion. The christian commandments for example, standing alone, are mostly common sense that we all expect from each other and bear no religious consequences.

gay marraige - Do whatever you want in your own home, but the definition of marraige in the US is based upon nature and biology and should remain man and woman. However I think the driving force behind the push for legal gay marraige is for the benefits (taxes, health insurance coverage, etc) that married couples get, and I see no problem in somehow modifying those things to extend beyong married couples only. But that is a problem with those benefits, not the definition of marraige.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Vic
Despite all their bumper stickers to the contrary, whacko liberals don't think. They feel. Everything is all about emotion with them, not thought. The bleeding heart that defies even the most basic common sense and historical evidence. It's why they are so easily led on a string by propaganda. Problem-reaction-solution. "Gun crimes are terrible! I know, we'll take guns from everyone. I never liked those icky things anyway."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

Right Wing retards have just as many problems in that area as Liberal commies. Take for instance almost any position the far right has on Abortion, Religion in Government/Schools, and Gay Marriage. All based in emotion and not on sound thought process.

The more accurate statement would be that *any extremists* on *either side* don't think, they just kneejerk against anything that doesn't support their fringe view.

Lol nice counter!

I tend to think of myself as conservative, but the very issues you listed are sore spots with me:

abortion - While I don't support it unconditionally "just because I want to", I firmly believe we should have the right to terminate pregnancy in the event of rape, severe biological mishaps, etc. If we were having a child without arms and legs or eyes, i.e. anything I would not want for myself, I would not hesitate in ending it for the sake of that child. Hell being killed before you're even self aware might be a good alternative to the living conditions imposed by teen pregnancies and ghetto building, instead of being forced to endure the rejection, abuse, humiliation, foster homes, etc that no child should ever endure because of someone elses irresponsibility.

religion - I despise religion as it is the antithesis of logic and reason driving people to commit numerous acts, good or bad, some threatening to others, without asking questions or thinking twice all in the name of blind faith.

gay marraige - Do whatever you want in your own home, but the definition of marraige in the US is based upon nature and biology and should remain man and woman. However I think the driving force behind the push for legal gay marraige is for the benefits (taxes, health insurance coverage, etc) that married couples get, and I see no problem in somehow modifying those things to extend beyong married couples only. But that is a problem with those benefits, not the definition of marraige.

We're about 95% on the same page. I don't see marriage as having any set definition, but my concern is with equality. As long as everyone gets equal rights, call it a "civil union" or whatever. The name is immaterial to me.

That's the only thing I'd add.


The word most often used for us - people who are largely centrist and think there are correct and incorrect views in both parties - is Libertarian.

Thing is, I don't subscribe to a platform. I have my views, and I'm not willing to set them in stone because often new information will come to light that causes them to change. That *thinking* deal.

Right now, I'm happy enough with "independent".

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: Vic
Despite all their bumper stickers to the contrary, whacko liberals don't think. They feel. Everything is all about emotion with them, not thought. The bleeding heart that defies even the most basic common sense and historical evidence. It's why they are so easily led on a string by propaganda. Problem-reaction-solution. "Gun crimes are terrible! I know, we'll take guns from everyone. I never liked those icky things anyway."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

Right Wing retards have just as many problems in that area as Liberal commies. Take for instance almost any position the far right has on Abortion, Religion in Government/Schools, and Gay Marriage. All based in emotion and not on sound thought process.

The more accurate statement would be that *any extremists* on *either side* don't think, they just kneejerk against anything that doesn't support their fringe view.

Lol nice counter!

I tend to think of myself as conservative, but the very issues you listed are sore spots with me:

abortion - While I don't support it unconditionally "just because I want to", I firmly believe we should have the right to terminate pregnancy in the event of rape, severe biological mishaps, etc. If we were having a child without arms and legs or eyes, i.e. anything I would not want for myself, I would not hesitate in ending it for the sake of that child. Hell being killed before you're even self aware might be a good alternative to the living conditions imposed by teen pregnancies and ghetto building, instead of being forced to endure the rejection, abuse, humiliation, foster homes, etc that no child should ever endure because of someone elses irresponsibility.

religion - I despise religion as it is the antithesis of logic and reason driving people to commit numerous acts, good or bad, some threatening to others, without asking questions or thinking twice all in the name of blind faith.

gay marraige - Do whatever you want in your own home, but the definition of marraige in the US is based upon nature and biology and should remain man and woman. However I think the driving force behind the push for legal gay marraige is for the benefits (taxes, health insurance coverage, etc) that married couples get, and I see no problem in somehow modifying those things to extend beyong married couples only. But that is a problem with those benefits, not the definition of marraige.

We're about 95% on the same page. I don't see marriage as having any set definition, but my concern is with equality. As long as everyone gets equal rights, call it a "civil union" or whatever. The name is immaterial to me.

That's the only thing I'd add.

Yeah, pretty much. Blame insurance companies for discriminating or something.

So 100% then

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

We're about 95% on the same page. I don't see marriage as having any set definition, but my concern is with equality. As long as everyone gets equal rights, call it a "civil union" or whatever. The name is immaterial to me.

That's the only thing I'd add.


The word most often used for us - people who are largely centrist and think there are correct and incorrect views in both parties - is Libertarian.

Thing is, I don't subscribe to a platform. I have my views, and I'm not willing to set them in stone because often new information will come to light that causes them to change. That *thinking* deal.

Right now, I'm happy enough with "independent".

You mean the American party?

 

[gwarbot]

MEH my mac ten says different.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The question I have and will always have: Who the f*ck needs an AK47 or an Uzi or a high powered semi automatic weapon to shoot wabbits?
I think people should have the right to bear arms, but I don't understand why most of you are so passionate when it comes to restricting guns that can maim and kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

That's the argument the anti-gun people portray.

Not everyone is looking to hunt...I bet most gun owners don't hunt at all.

People want a faster delivery for protection.

A gun is an insurance policy...you hope you never need it, but want it if you do.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: exdeath
abortion - [snip]

I agree to a point...depends when that abortion happens.

Originally posted by: exdeath
religion - I despise religion as it is the antithesis of logic and reason, driving people to commit numerous acts, sometimes good but mostly bad, some threatening to others, without asking questions or thinking twice all in the name of blind faith. In short it is the number one cause of today's problems of people not being able to think for themselves and it fosters herd mentality, which I find repulsive.

I am not sure where you were trying to go on this...but my thoughts...

I know a lot of science. I am not sure if there is a "GOD(s)"....but I do know it can't absolutely be ruled out. I read a lot of science and a lot of ancient history/religion...

most of it is greed- based...due to human nature.

Originally posted by: exdeath
gay marraige - Do whatever you want in your own home, but the definition of marraige in the US is based upon nature and biology and should remain man and woman. However I think the driving force behind the push for legal gay marraige is for the benefits (taxes, health insurance coverage, etc) that married couples get, and I see no problem in somehow modifying those things to extend beyong married couples only. But that is a problem with those benefits, not the definition of marraige.

I am a straight male. Your whole argument here defines your problems with religion.

Marriage in the US/World is mostly based on creating new tax payers/tithers/etc. I am not going to get into the religious creations behind it (no pun intended).

However, I do love the arguments on monogamous marriages...then talk about the great kings usually mentioned in all the holy books, and there parade of bishes!

 

[Insomniak]

Didn't we already establish that anyone disagreeing with me is wrong?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Didn't we already establish that anyone agreeing with me is wrong?

fixed

 

[amcdonald]

I read almost the entire thread.. and apparently the people who are well-versed and capable of arguing tend to be pro-gun.

Different friends of mine run tattoo shops, which seem to be magnets for crazy people. The fact that they have several guns in each shop gives a sense of security you cannot replace. Keep in mind there are local cops that are very friendly with us and hang out at the shops when nothing is going on in their area... While this gives an unparalleled sense of security, when cops are nowhere in sight, and if some addict walks up to the shop acting irrational, knowing that a hard knock on the front glass will mean someone comes out front with a gun is priceless.
All it takes is the wrong place, wrong time, and no cop in sight for your sense of security to come crashing down.


I know maybe tons of people that have been around guns their whole lives, and I don't know of ONE accident.

And the situation in new orleans SHOULD bring up gun issues in people's minds.
You should think, what would I do if I was in that situation... YOU would wish you had an arsenal, let alone a handgun.
Hell, I think that way when I watch zombie movies.. this should make that desperate anarchy a personal concern.
But I live in florida, maybe it's different where natural disasters don't have this kind of effect.

but, the main thing I realized is that classy is a fvcktard.

 

[mercanucaribe]

The argument that criminals use illegal guns is ridiculous. Criminals use drugs illegally, so does that mean we should legalize all drugs? The fact that you have to go through a process in order to buy a gun makes it less likely that a criminal is going to have a gun in the first place, and the waiting period exists for a REASON. That is to prevent gun usage in crimes of passion. Yes, you can kill someone with a baseball bat, but it's a lot harder than with a gun, and I'd like to see you try to mow down a high school full of kids with a Louisville Slugger. Yes a man can stab his wife when she cooks a bad omelette, but she can fight back. The better you regulate, the more guns go into the hands of responsible citizens, and the fewer go into the hands of criminals. That's the idea behind gun control. You regulate guns, and you do your best to eliminate the black market. It's the same as the DEA and every other law enforcement agency that focuses on something specific.

Here are arguments that are equivalent to "criminals don't use guns legally so responsible citizens shouldn't have to go through registration":

Burglers will burgle your house no matter what if they really want to, so why bother locking the door?
Hackers will hack your computer no matter what, so don't use a firewall.
If you crash your bike you'll probably die no matter what, so don't bother with a helmet.
Illegal immigrants and other people without licenses drive anyway, so why bother with driver licenses?


What exactly is so attractive to you people about criminals having guns LEGALLY and being able to buy guns more easily? That is after all what it would mean to deregulate gun ownership.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
The argument that criminals use illegal guns is ridiculous. Criminals use drugs illegally, so does that mean we should legalize all drugs? The fact that you have to go through a process in order to buy a gun makes it less likely that a criminal is going to have a gun in the first place, and the waiting period exists for a REASON. That is to prevent gun usage in crimes of passion. Yes, you can kill someone with a baseball bat, but it's a lot harder than with a gun, and I'd like to see you try to mow down a high school full of kids with a Louisville Slugger. Yes a man can stab his wife when she cooks a bad omelette, but she can fight back. The better you regulate, the more guns go into the hands of responsible citizens, and the fewer go into the hands of criminals. That's the idea behind gun control. You regulate guns, and you do your best to eliminate the black market. It's the same as the DEA and every other law enforcement agency that focuses on something specific.

Here are arguments that are equivalent to "criminals don't use guns legally so responsible citizens shouldn't have to go through registration":

Burglers will burgle your house no matter what if they really want to, so why bother locking the door?
Hackers will hack your computer no matter what, so don't use a firewall.
If you crash your bike you'll probably die no matter what, so don't bother with a helmet.
Illegal immigrants and other people without licenses drive anyway, so why bother with driver licenses?


What exactly is so attractive to you people about criminals having guns LEGALLY and being able to buy guns more easily? That is after all what it would mean to deregulate gun ownership.

Absurd.

Waiting periods were proven to have NO effect on gun related crimes. It's the main reason the Brady Bill was not extended and allowed to expire. It was worthless.

Yes, drugs should be legal. The government has no business regulating our bodies. If one wants to be an idiot and put toxins in their body, the government has no business stopping them.

As for criminals with guns, the only prevention is to lock the criminals up, and/or address why they are criminals in the first place. As the war on drugs has proven, you cannot effectively ban something away. It's pointless. The war on drugs has had exactly zero effect on addiction, or abuse. The only effective policy for that has been education.

Gun restrictions and bans have the very same effect, with one worse outcome: They disarm the law abiding.

Restrictions on the law abiding, registrations and bans have done NOTHING to reduce gun related crime. History is against you on this. Crime is an intent, not hardware. You cannot stop crime by banning something (in fact, all you have done is create more crime). You can only stop crime by addressing the intent to commit crime. And if you cannot stop the intent, you lock the person up and separate him from society.

Finally, NO ONE here has said criminals should have guns legally. No one here has opposed the ban on convicted felons and people with a history of mental illness buying, or possessing a gun.

 

[Legend]

I haven't read the entire thread.

I often hear the argument that if we ban guns that criminals will still use guns. That makes sense and everything. But don't most criminals get their guns initially as a law abiding citizen, get in a desperate situation, see their gun as a powerful tool to fix that situation, and commit a crime?

Now certainly at first there will be a large amount of guns in circulation if there was a ban.

Another thing is that people often say it's their right to have a gun because it's in the bill of rights. But wasn't the bill of rights written in a time when people lived on the wild frontier and the law system was weaker? People needed guns for food and protection. Today it seems mostly amusement and protection. I still see protection as an issue, not arguing against that.

I'm just curious what the response is to that.

IMO, this is a very grey issue. I don't see either side as totally correct.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Legend
I haven't read the entire thread.

I often hear the argument that if we ban guns that criminals will still use guns. That makes sense and everything. But don't most criminals get their guns initially as a law abiding citizen, get in a desperate situation, see their gun as a powerful tool to fix that situation, and commit a crime?

No. In fact, only a tiny minority of crimes are committed by legal gun owners. In fact, 75% of murderers have adult criminal records. Of the remaining 25%, half are juveniles.

Now certainly at first there will be a large amount of guns in circulation if there was a ban.

There are more drugs in circulation today, than when they were each banned.

Another thing is that people often say it's their right to have a gun because it's in the bill of rights. But wasn't the bill of rights written in a time when people lived on the wild frontier and the law system was weaker? People needed guns for food and protection. Today it seems mostly amusement and protection. I still see protection as an issue, not arguing against that.

I'm just curious what the response is to that.

IMO, this is a very grey issue. I don't see either side as totally correct.

Human nature has not changed in a mere 230 years.

There is nothing gray about this issue at all.

 

[Polish3d]

I thought this stupid topic (the idea of gun control) was only idiotic enough to be considered in the 90s, when there was nothing else to do

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: amcdonald
I read almost the entire thread.. and apparently the people who are well-versed and capable of arguing tend to be pro-gun.

Different friends of mine run tattoo shops, which seem to be magnets for crazy people. The fact that they have several guns in each shop gives a sense of security you cannot replace. Keep in mind there are local cops that are very friendly with us and hang out at the shops when nothing is going on in their area... While this gives an unparalleled sense of security, when cops are nowhere in sight, and if some addict walks up to the shop acting irrational, knowing that a hard knock on the front glass will mean someone comes out front with a gun is priceless.
All it takes is the wrong place, wrong time, and no cop in sight for your sense of security to come crashing down.


I know maybe tons of people that have been around guns their whole lives, and I don't know of ONE accident.

And the situation in new orleans SHOULD bring up gun issues in people's minds.
You should think, what would I do if I was in that situation... YOU would wish you had an arsenal, let alone a handgun.
Hell, I think that way when I watch zombie movies.. this should make that desperate anarchy a personal concern.
But I live in florida, maybe it's different where natural disasters don't have this kind of effect.

but, the main thing I realized is that classy is a fvcktard.

I wholeheartedly agree...but the problem is many just don't see or participate in these kinds of places...or even good out late at night. Out of sight is out of mind.

However, once you put that into their heads they are then, let's outlaw guns and tattoo shops. Let's outlaw clubs open after 11pm. etc. Problem is still there though.

I see in this thread people are bringing legalizing drugs into it too. This is where the whole debate falls apart because the issue gets broken up into ludicrous statements.

Legalizing guns and legalizing drugs are two separate issues. Also when one is talking legalizing drugs, that opens a whole bag of worms as heroin is a totally different animal than X or pot.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

I see in this thread people are bringing legalizing drugs into it too. This is where the whole debate falls apart because the issue gets broken up into ludicrous statements.

Legalizing guns and legalizing drugs are two separate issues. Also when one is talking legalizing drugs, that opens a whole bag of worms as heroin is a totally different animal than X or pot.

I disagree. The failed ban on drugs and never ending drug supply is an EXCELLENT example to use to show how a ban on guns will do NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. ALL it will do is disarm the law abiding.

It is also a good example to show how passing more laws to keep people from breaking already existing laws is absurd.