I meant to say "maces", but yeah, people should have magic too.Acting like a FOOL said:
And in that case, they shouldn't have jobs that put them at risk of getting into fights with heavily-armed people.
Poll: What is your stance on Guns?
- Thread starter genericusername64
- Start date
And in that case, they shouldn't have jobs that put them at risk of getting into fights with heavily-armed people.
Well I?m a British person and therefore no one has guns except the police and that?s only when there guarding an airport or there going up against dangerous criminals, and to be honest everything?s working pretty well here so I think our way works pretty well.
Then what is to stop corrupt political figures from declaring marshal law and turning the United States into a Military Ruled zone?Ulquiorra4sama said:
America has its gun laws because when we were first founded the people needed the right to defend themselves against a militia. The 2nd amendment was put in place by the Founding Fathers to ensure that all citizens of America, for as long as it is a country, will always be protected from invading forces "foreign or domestic". They knew that the time might come again, and wanted future peoples to be able to defend themselves.
Additionally, there hasn't been a single gun control law that has been proven to actually work. Where do most gun-related crimes take place? In gun-free zones, because criminals know no one will be there to oppose them. In fact, it HAS been proven that crime rates drop where gun control laws have been reduced. I've done all the research, try some yourself.
Gun control laws don't really interest me so i don't look too much into them. I just know that i live in a country where guns are very strictly regulated and you've gotta go through a very round-about system to get one distributed to civilians. Crime rates are among the lowest in the world so naturally there's not much gun violence either.Wushu Panda said:
Also it's a plus that we're not compltely paranoid when it comes to our own government.
If you don't know much about gun control laws, how can you have an opinion on the matter? This is where so much confusion and distortion of the facts takes place. First off, you live in a place with MAYBE 5 million people while the US has over 307 million people with countless more illegally crossing borders and sneaking inside. It becomes hard to regulate ANYTHING with those conditions. Just because your tiny country can regulate a handful of people doesn't mean squat. Your criminals are a joke to ours.Ulquiorra4sama said:
It's not civilians we are worried about it is the CRIMINALS ILLEGALLY BYPASSING SECURITY CHECKS THAT MAKE THE PROBLEMS. That is why gun-control laws are bull****. People falsely accuse NRA members and being "gun nuts" and the source of our gun crimes, but its THOSE citizens who willingly have allowed themselves to be checked, who OBEY laws.
I'm not saying the entire US population is paranoid at this moment. But when the US was founded they were defending themselves against Britain's King who was taking advantage of people across an ocean. The Founding Father's 2 Amendment has ensured the government has fear of the people to ensure they don't assume total control. We have seen this happen in MANY South American countries and still happens in numerous others around the world.
^This. Just because a smaller country can police arms regulation easily, doesn't mean the US can. We have too much territory to be able to make sure that criminals aren't smuggling in guns. Heck, we can't even keep illegal immigrants out of the country, how the hell are we going to keep illegal weapons out?
And I believe that a society where the criminals have guns(because they obtain them illegally, and would STILL be able to get them, even if guns were banned), and honest citizens have no way of defending themselves is insane.
That said, I also believe that you should be subject to strict standards before being able to get a gun. Allowing intelligent individuals with common sense to own firearms is one thing. Allowing EVERYONE is another entirely.
And I believe that a society where the criminals have guns(because they obtain them illegally, and would STILL be able to get them, even if guns were banned), and honest citizens have no way of defending themselves is insane.
That said, I also believe that you should be subject to strict standards before being able to get a gun. Allowing intelligent individuals with common sense to own firearms is one thing. Allowing EVERYONE is another entirely.
I'm a pacifist and frankly just don't see the point in owning anything even potentially dangerous that I'm not actively going to use for a more recreational purpose (eg. cooking). I don't hunt and therefore have no use for a gun. More than that, though, I'm not worried about some idiot accidentally harming themselves with my property, I'm more worried about causing accidental harm to MYSELF. I'm clumsy as are many of my friends (we've almost busted our filmmaking equipment on several occasions) and I just don't need the added risk.
Half the people who want guns literally can't use them to save their lives anyway. Dogs tend to be more useful for home defense, most criminals don't approach if there's a lot of noise and light and if they have good reason to believe the dog likes to go for the balls, and in the extreme scenarios the gun proponents always like to bring up owning a gun wouldn't make much of a difference anyway, contrary to what movies and games show they're actually fussy fuckers.
Should all guns be banned? No. There are people of reasonable intelligence in the world who can be trusted with a weapon, there are also people who hunt for food or just collect antique ones. The screening process for buying a gun definitely needs to be far more strict than it is now though, and i'd definitely support a law where violent felons aren't allowed to keep guns. As for home defense... there's this wonderful little organization known as the Humane Society of America. Dogs are, believe it or not, easier to manage than a firearm and are less likely to kill your kids when you leave them lying out. Yeah you have to train them and spay or neuter them, but hey, better safe than sorry, right?
Should all guns be banned? No. There are people of reasonable intelligence in the world who can be trusted with a weapon, there are also people who hunt for food or just collect antique ones. The screening process for buying a gun definitely needs to be far more strict than it is now though, and i'd definitely support a law where violent felons aren't allowed to keep guns. As for home defense... there's this wonderful little organization known as the Humane Society of America. Dogs are, believe it or not, easier to manage than a firearm and are less likely to kill your kids when you leave them lying out. Yeah you have to train them and spay or neuter them, but hey, better safe than sorry, right?
I hear way too many stories about kids finding their parents guns and getting shot. Guns are for cops and people who register for them. If we gave everyone guns so many people would get shot. You can't hand guns to everyone that asks for one. Look at the Arizona shooting a while ago if you need an example.
This video is perhaps the greatest prank call youtube has to offer. It's all about gun control. There is some cursing in it, so watch at your own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIEHI0vfCBk
My point? If everyone gets military grade weapons people like the prank caller get them too.
This video is perhaps the greatest prank call youtube has to offer. It's all about gun control. There is some cursing in it, so watch at your own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIEHI0vfCBk
My point? If everyone gets military grade weapons people like the prank caller get them too.
Say guns are banned in your country.
Who can get guns? (excluding police, military etc)
Answer: Criminals willing to break the law to acquire guns.
Say guns are allowed in your country.
Who can get guns? (excluding police, military etc)
Answer: Law abiding, responsible adults like yourself, and criminals willing to either break the law, or risk being tracked by serial numbers, store receipts etc.
You could say that allowing guns means more guns out there. That's true. But why put power in the hands of law-breakers over civilians? I remember watching some documentary on gun laws, and they interviewed some ex-cons. They asked "What do you fear most when trying anything criminal?". Their answer (to the best of my memory) was; "Armed civilians. You don't know what they have, or what they're capable of. You know what cops have. What they're gonna do. Where they are. Not civilians." Why give criminals the confidence of a completely unarmed public? "Peace of mind"? For them maybe.
Although, more guns means more gun related death and injuries. Period. Weather it be misfires, accidents, or just flat out murder, there will be more. This seems like an instant no-go, but if we think like that, then outlaw knifes, cars, tall buildings, electricity etc. Obviously those things have more of a direct positive impact on humans then guns, but you get the point. We can't outlaw things that are dangerous just because some people might not be responsible. Remember video game censorship? Yeah, I went there. Its the same idea. You're punishing millions of people because 3 or 4 individuals (For games, parents) screwed up
For the poll question, I picked "Only small handguns", because if someone does have a death wish, they can't just pick up a SAW on the way to city hall. But if he DID go to city hall and just started shooting, odds are someone would have a gun at their desk (or car or whatever), and might be able to take out the nutter before he killed anyone. Better than just lining up against the wall and saying goodbye.
Who can get guns? (excluding police, military etc)
Answer: Criminals willing to break the law to acquire guns.
Say guns are allowed in your country.
Who can get guns? (excluding police, military etc)
Answer: Law abiding, responsible adults like yourself, and criminals willing to either break the law, or risk being tracked by serial numbers, store receipts etc.
You could say that allowing guns means more guns out there. That's true. But why put power in the hands of law-breakers over civilians? I remember watching some documentary on gun laws, and they interviewed some ex-cons. They asked "What do you fear most when trying anything criminal?". Their answer (to the best of my memory) was; "Armed civilians. You don't know what they have, or what they're capable of. You know what cops have. What they're gonna do. Where they are. Not civilians." Why give criminals the confidence of a completely unarmed public? "Peace of mind"? For them maybe.
Although, more guns means more gun related death and injuries. Period. Weather it be misfires, accidents, or just flat out murder, there will be more. This seems like an instant no-go, but if we think like that, then outlaw knifes, cars, tall buildings, electricity etc. Obviously those things have more of a direct positive impact on humans then guns, but you get the point. We can't outlaw things that are dangerous just because some people might not be responsible. Remember video game censorship? Yeah, I went there. Its the same idea. You're punishing millions of people because 3 or 4 individuals (For games, parents) screwed up
For the poll question, I picked "Only small handguns", because if someone does have a death wish, they can't just pick up a SAW on the way to city hall. But if he DID go to city hall and just started shooting, odds are someone would have a gun at their desk (or car or whatever), and might be able to take out the nutter before he killed anyone. Better than just lining up against the wall and saying goodbye.
Well, yeah, criminals do carry knifes. Here's the thing, I don't like the idea that in America anyone could have a gun. Yeah, it's irrational but it gives me the creeps. Heights also give me the creeps, I'm unlikely to fall off but it worries me anyway. Some people are freaked out by spiders.dogstile said:
The problem is what happens when those up top, (ie the government) are in charge of the military and you can fight back with nothing but baseball bats? This isn't some radical view I'm giving you. This is history. When governments force their will on people who do not want it. Few people who argue against the rights of civilians owning guns ever consider this and just blindly follow their leaders. And that worries me. Because I know my leaders. And they are dumb as fuck. Just about all of them.Daystar Clarion said:From an engineering and aesthetic aspect, I really like guns.
Beautiful
But from a cultural standpoint, I think it's ridiculous that civillians are allowed them outside of firing ranges.
Untrained people are twitchy, and very likely to shoot you if they have a gun at hand even if the situation can be defused some other way.
I think only the police should be armed, and then only the units that are dispatched to highly dangerous situations.
Just a comment:
Small pistols are probably more dangerous than larger firearms because they are easy to conceal. This is why they are banned in the UK, whereas some shotguns and rifles are legal.
Anyway, my stance is:
some regulation is needed, but at the end of the day, its the law abider who suffers most since people who are willing to commit a crime with a gun are probably willing to acquire one illegally...
That's not to say that I fully support firearms, but I think it's a rational stance to take.
On gun legislation in the UK:
My condolences go out to the families of the victims of the Dunblane massacre, but I think that the legislature passed in response to it was a knee-jerk reaction for political gain rather than for the safety of the public. Especially as the Police (and by extension, the government) were criticised for not inquiring as to why he had a gun collection the size it was prior to the incident.
Small pistols are probably more dangerous than larger firearms because they are easy to conceal. This is why they are banned in the UK, whereas some shotguns and rifles are legal.
Anyway, my stance is:
some regulation is needed, but at the end of the day, its the law abider who suffers most since people who are willing to commit a crime with a gun are probably willing to acquire one illegally...
That's not to say that I fully support firearms, but I think it's a rational stance to take.
On gun legislation in the UK:
My condolences go out to the families of the victims of the Dunblane massacre, but I think that the legislature passed in response to it was a knee-jerk reaction for political gain rather than for the safety of the public. Especially as the Police (and by extension, the government) were criticised for not inquiring as to why he had a gun collection the size it was prior to the incident.
I believe everyone should be able to own a pistol for self defense. My reasoning behind this is that a criminal will be armed whether there are laws prohibiting it or not. Making it illegal to carry/own a pistol will just put the common citizen at a disadvantage when comparing them to a criminal.
I also believe that with this, EVERY person at some age (probably somewhere between 14-18) should be forced to take a class on gun safety and operation. This way we would cut down on stupidity when it comes to guns.
I also believe that with this, EVERY person at some age (probably somewhere between 14-18) should be forced to take a class on gun safety and operation. This way we would cut down on stupidity when it comes to guns.
The military is both the government's strongest weapon, and greatest threat.Rex Fallout said:The problem is what happens when those up top, (ie the government) are in charge of the military and you can fight back with nothing but baseball bats? This isn't some radical view I'm giving you. This is history. When governments force their will on people who do not want it. Few people who argue against the rights of civilians owning guns ever consider this and just blindly follow their leaders. And that worries me. Because I know my leaders. And they are dumb as fuck. Just about all of them.Daystar Clarion said:From an engineering and aesthetic aspect, I really like guns.
Beautiful
But from a cultural standpoint, I think it's ridiculous that civillians are allowed them outside of firing ranges.
Untrained people are twitchy, and very likely to shoot you if they have a gun at hand even if the situation can be defused some other way.
I think only the police should be armed, and then only the units that are dispatched to highly dangerous situations.
Who is in the army? People, and people will question the things that government are making them do.
Anyway, even if that was not the case, do you really think group of average people will have any chance against miltary units?
The problem doesn't lie within the accessibility of guns. It ultimately boils down to making sure criminals and those who wouldn't use them responsibility are not able to obtain them in the first place. If that were a measure put into play then by all means, everything would be gravy.