Yes the never ending issue of gun control. I personally believe that guns are mostly useless but i have always struggled between the idea of a ban on guns due to the "Right to bare Arms".

Do you think Guns should be banned? Controlled(and if so to what extent and how)?
Do you think guns should be a household item?
Should people be able to carry them in public?

Shinsen89

Gun aren't the problem, it's people. Whether something is bad or not depends on the individual. If guns were totally to blame then why hasn't every gun in America been used in a crime or accidentally killed any one? The majority of people that buy their guns legally are responsibly gun owners and know the proper use and handling of firearms. To blame them for the actions of a few is throwing out another constitutional right of the presumption of innocence.

If the laws already on the books were actually enforced it wouldn't matter what the law abiding citizens aren't armed as criminals would still find was to get a gun. You can't protect every one in the world by banning everything that causes harm because that would eliminate much of what our modern world uses. Would you have us go back to living in caves all wrapped up in bubble wrap to keep us safe?

I would prefer to have bear arms rather than guns.

Quote by DuuzGun aren't the problem, it's people. Whether something is bad or not depends on the individual. If guns were totally to blame then why hasn't every gun in America been used in a crime or accidentally killed any one? The majority of people that buy their guns legally are responsibly gun owners and know the proper use and handling of firearms. To blame them for the actions of a few is throwing out another constitutional right of the presumption of innocence.

If the laws already on the books were actually enforced it wouldn't matter what the law abiding citizens aren't armed as criminals would still find was to get a gun. You can't protect every one in the world by banning everything that causes harm because that would eliminate much of what our modern world uses. Would you have us go back to living in caves all wrapped up in bubble wrap to keep us safe?

well i believe Duuz has said everything i was going to say.

i also think that guns should be controlled, to an extent. anyway they shouldn't be allowed in public. it is people who are to blame for these kind of deaths not the gun. gun is simply a tool, just depends on how u use it.

Hmmm interesting question... to be honest, I don't think they could be banned, and it would be hard to regulate who has them and who doesn't. But if getting a gun is as simple as just "presenting a form that says you're sane enough" or simply buying it from a dark alley, well, then who are we giving guns?! Besides, "the right to bear arms" is a bit primitive isn't it? I mean, we have the right to protect those we love, but not the right to all of a sudden say "okay let's go patroling with our guns!" cuz... that's an alteration of public peace isn't it? So my answer would be to apply more control to who buys and who sells guns...

Firstly stopped manufacturing and next scrapped! Their existence hinders peace! After all there are foolish people so why make dangerous tools!

like many posters had said... the problem is with the people, I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a call for something else to be banned after guns are banned... i mean, if there are no guns, people would just use something else as a weapon.. and one day, we may have to ban pillows too..

on whether guns should be allowed in households, it depends on the enviroment itself, whether how well the criminals are armed etc...

Quote by Haohmaru77Hmmm interesting question... to be honest, I don't think they could be banned, and it would be hard to regulate who has them and who doesn't. But if getting a gun is as simple as just "presenting a form that says you're sane enough" or simply buying it from a dark alley, well, then who are we giving guns?! Besides, "the right to bear arms" is a bit primitive isn't it? I mean, we have the right to protect those we love, but not the right to all of a sudden say "okay let's go patroling with our guns!" cuz... that's an alteration of public peace isn't it? So my answer would be to apply more control to who buys and who sells guns...

good answer.

merged: 06-18-2007 ~ 08:02pm

Quote by DuuzGun aren't the problem, it's people. Whether something is bad or not depends on the individual. If guns were totally to blame then why hasn't every gun in America been used in a crime or accidentally killed any one? The majority of people that buy their guns legally are responsibly gun owners and know the proper use and handling of firearms. To blame them for the actions of a few is throwing out another constitutional right of the presumption of innocence.

If the laws already on the books were actually enforced it wouldn't matter what the law abiding citizens aren't armed as criminals would still find was to get a gun. You can't protect every one in the world by banning everything that causes harm because that would eliminate much of what our modern world uses. Would you have us go back to living in caves all wrapped up in bubble wrap to keep us safe?

I agree with the fact that you can't blame every person who owns a gun for every murder or mistreatment of one, but where do we hold the line, at AK-47s, at grenades, at automatics, at semi automatics,? I believe in American culture weapons like these are too dangerous, United States citizens tend to react to fear much quicker then the average citizen of a western nation.

i believe that people should be able to own hand guns for the time being and basic hunting rifles, but everything else should be banned. you may say well they'll just get illegal parts, true but nothing is wrong with limiting power, and weapons are a representation of power.

Shinsen89

What some of you guys fail to realize is that the right to bear arms goes along with the right to defend oneself from enemies foreign or DOMESTIC (that includes our own government not that we would likely ever need to... I hope but the possibility exists). Unfortunately the countries that have banned the right o own weapons have ended up with an increase in crime. Why you ask? Because the criminals can still get weapons and they know that the normal citizens do not have weapons.

For these two reason guns should never be banned until we live in a completely open and close to Utopian society (at the rate things are going right now thats, as the say, when pigs fly) As far as banning certain types of guns I am kinda mixed on that because personally I would love to own some of the more powerful military weapons because I like weapons but I do not like what they were built for (mainly hurting others) I am also kinda competitive and enjoy shooting to see how accurate I can get.

Quote by RadhaFirstly stopped manufacturing and next scrapped! Their existence hinders peace! After all there are foolish people so why make dangerous tools!

Guns an impediment of peace? Hardly. There have been wars and murder long before the gun was even invented. If a criminal wants to kill and has the drive to do it, a knife or they can be creative with a screwdriver that can do the task just as easily.

Secondly it doesn't take much knowledge and know how to make a homemade gun or zip gun, you can even make the projectiles yourself. How does that make people safe knowing there are people out there with the skills to do these things?

I've made a spudgun, not very powerful but it can kill a rabbit and probably hurt a person very baddly. Bad enough for me to get the upper hand on them. If I was a criminal and just hit a cop now I'd have the cop's gun as well.

Banning guns does not help the law abiding citizen, it helps the criminal more than anything. It creates an open season for criminals knowing that there is no chance of finding a person armed to stop them, they know the police can't be every where and it takes time for them to get to a crime scene.

Guns should be controlled. People need guns for protection and hunting. At the same time there are some people who shouldn't have guns, namely felons, the insane, and inner city minorities (no, I'm not racist, I'm practical).

Quote by nightmaresyndromeGuns should be controlled. People need guns for protection and hunting. At the same time there are some people who shouldn't have guns, namely felons, the insane, and inner city minorities (no, I'm not racist, I'm practical).

Excuse me unless your Bear Grylls of Man v. Wild you don't need a weapon to obtain food in the United States. Also the columbine massacre and Oklahoma city bombing were both done by Caucasians, as most mass killings are in the United States.

quite a topic yo ugot here shinsen...ok heres my oppinion

guns hinder peace FULL STOP...PERIOD...they hinder peace...

but..its a desire of each and every human, to posses power, and each human always wants what they cannot have, that power is generally the one to judge what lives and what dies.
i know a few guys who live on farms and have rifles, ( i know this is different ) they kill rabbits day in day out...i know its not like a life or anything important...but the act is the same...

once someone learns to pull the trigger, and lears to feel joy from that action, there lost, once someone no longer regretts pulling that trigger, there lost..

hence, guns dont solve any problems...

but the other very simple rule of life is...

wihtout weaonry, without guns, and swords. without wars, and fighting for countries and turf.

each country would see the next as weak. weaonry even if its not used, is a way to essert dominance...hence russia, havn't fought since like WW2 if im not mistaken...(well not including soviets becoming russia )

but the point is. weaponry is needed to make others take you seriusly, abotu how much the turf means to the country, weaponry itself in random peoples hands, tears countries apart.

kaisugaya

People say its people doing the killing,but thats harder to fix in my opinion. Banning guns will get almost the same result I think since killing with guns makes killing easy and less stressing on the murderer etc. Taking this away from your average person ( I mean if they're banned you'd have to get them somewhere underground which is risky and hard to find) will reduce the killing and danger of guns (obviously).

Now some1's gonna say: so if a criminal came into your house with a desert eagle and you come at him with a baseball bat you'll be shot in the head'. No, I'd run for it and call the police, assuming id heared him coming. If he got the jump on me I'm dead anyways unless I'd happen to be holding my gun at pointing it in his direction when he comes barging in. So my point being if some1 wants you dead you're better of not fighting him at his own game, thats why we got the police and other survival options.
And I mean shooting a burglar is wrong, if it wasnt theyd be given the death sentence and not go to jail, thank god for law and order.

And I just love it when people says a knife can cut butter, and a throat. Its a poor comparison to guns, because what do guns do? A gun can kill a person, or it can maim a person. It just depends on how you use it, lol. The original purpose of the knife was as a tool, the purpose of a gun was to kill another human being in an easy way.

Be realistic, not optimistic. In this case that is^^

btw is this thread a repeat of another thread?

Quote by kaerionguns hinder peace FULL STOP...PERIOD...they hinder peace...

I'd be interested in hearing your logical explanation for that statement since it can only be applied to guns used against other people. I've personally used weapons (guns and other forms) for completely peaceful purposes such as hunting (for food as sport hunting is BS) and competition.

I'd also suggest polishing up the rest of your arguments since they are vague at best.

Quote by AestusPeople say its people doing the killing,but thats harder to fix in my opinion. Banning guns will get almost the same result I think since killing with guns makes killing easy and less stressing on the murderer etc. Taking this away from your average person ( I mean if they're banned you'd have to get them somewhere underground which is risky and hard to find) will reduce the killing and danger of guns (obviously).

How is that obvious. Put yourself in a criminals shoes. Would you rather be a criminal in a nation that has banned firearms or in a nation that allows ownership of firearms. Its a rather easy choice to get a weapon illegally and go to a place where the law abiding citizens lack equivalent personal protection. These nations that have banned firearms have seen substantial increase in violent crime because the criminals know that the law abiding people are basically defenseless.

Quote by AestusAnd I mean shooting a burglar is wrong, if it wasnt theyd be given the death sentence and not go to jail, thank god for law and order.

Umm I have to disagree with you there. Since most of these events happen an night and given that the homeowner usually does not know what (if any) weapons the person invading their home is carrying I see absolutely no issue with shooting first and asking questions later. 1. Its less risky to yourself and your family and 2. it establishes the precedent that its generally a bad idea to invade someones home (after all justice is a great deal more interested in prevention than punishment)

Quote by AestusAnd I just love it when people says a knife can cut butter, and a throat. Its a poor comparison to guns, because what do guns do? A gun can kill a person, or it can maim a person. It just depends on how you use it, lol. The original purpose of the knife was as a tool, the purpose of a gun was to kill another human being in an easy way.

Actually its a very apt comparison. The only true difference between items or materials that can be used as deadly weapons is how close you have to get to use them.

Quote by MnemethThese nations that have banned firearms have seen substantial increase in violent crime because the criminals know that the law abiding people are basically defenseless.

Really? Where's your proof? Since we're on MT ill take japan as a good example, they abolished guns everywhere and yet they have extremely low levels of violent crime. So must be some truth in what I said.
Knowing my neighbour doesnt own a gun does not make me more likely to rob him. And if you're refering to a criminal thats desperate they will not be detered by danger ('placing myself is his shoes').

Quote by MnemethUmm I have to disagree with you there. Since most of these events happen an night and given that the homeowner usually does not know what (if any) weapons the person invading their home is carrying I see absolutely no issue with shooting first and asking questions later. 1. Its less risky to yourself and your family and 2. it establishes the precedent that its generally a bad idea to invade someones home (after all justice is a great deal more interested in prevention than punishment

You're entitled to your opinion, be it somewhat harsh. I'd call the police though. I agree with the first point, although the risk of him coming into the house with murderous intentent is negligable or extremely unlikely, therefore lowering the risk by shooting him would be inappropriate.
Point two is just poorly concieved I believe, insnt shooting the invader the same as executing punishment yourself, thus not preventing- and not complying to the law. I know you're preventing perhaps another crime, but the means does not justify the end. Of course its a bad thing to invade someones home, guns or no guns, but shooting them will not lower the crime rate, as I believe you argued.

Quote by Mnemeth

Quote by AestusAnd I just love it when people says a knife can cut butter, and a throat. Its a poor comparison to guns, because what do guns do? A gun can kill a person, or it can maim a person. It just depends on how you use it, lol. The original purpose of the knife was as a tool, the purpose of a gun was to kill another human being in an easy way.

Actually its a very apt comparison. The only true difference between items or materials that can be used as deadly weapons is how close you have to get to use them.

I believe you missed my point there, entirely.
How to say this in simpler terms, a gun has no peaceful use, all it can do (excluding sports) is kill or hurt. I say thats one arguement to ban it.
Then someone comes with a counter-arguement, a comparison: 'shouldnt we ban knives and forks too then? Since they can kill and hurt aswell'
This comparison is weak because knives and forks have other uses, their main uses being peaceful and helpful. This cannot be said for guns, therefore this comparison does not apply to guns. Is my reasoning anyways hope you can follow it now. The risk of them being used as a weapon is not even comparible between the two materials (99% vs 1 or 2% if id have to guess), for various practical reasons.
Try reading it again, twice.

I haven't seen anything in this thread that has not been said in some form in this thread: Gun Control

So I'm overriding the 4 week rule.

Closed.