Are You For Or Against Guns?

[Keudn]

I think it should be legal for people to own guns, but it needs to be harder to obtain them and you have to go through some sort of test to get a license that will make sure you aren't mentally unstable, because right now as long as you don't have a federal offense you can pretty much get any gun you want

[Guest Kloaked]

I see you're making a hyperbole, but sadly it's just entirely incorrect.

The issue with your statement (and I think you know it) is that cars obviously have a much more useful role in our society then guns currently do.

 

Firearms play just as big a role in potentially saving someone's life as a quick ambulance ride to the hospital, which was the point I was trying to make.

 

If we have to rely on police, there's more than enough time for someone to take your life before police show up after you call them about your life being threatened. 

[Blade of Grass]

Firearms play just as big a role in potentially saving someone's life as a quick ambulance ride to the hospital, which was the point I was trying to make.

 

If we have to rely on police, there's more than enough time for someone to take your life before police show up after you call them about your life being threatened. 

Ah, you're right, I didn't consider using a firearm to save someone who has arterial bleeding  :rolleyes:

[Guest Kloaked]

Ah, you're right, I didn't consider using a firearm to save someone who has arterial bleeding  :rolleyes:

 

The dense is strong with this one.

 

 

Plus, I clearly said police in the second statement about firearms, not the ambulance. 

[cae]

I found this:

 

 

Yummy regulation. Yet there are still so many on the road without tags, insurance, or licenses. One is a privilege and one is a right. Apply the same train of thought to free speech and see if it's as appealing.

[xXcorsairXx]

If no body has guns where will the stolen ones coming from?

 

also that video is hopelessly one sided, loaded with fallacies and the stats they report are made up.

Kid the cartels will bring them in form any where they can get them... you don't under stand.

[n0ah1897]

My take:

 

Have as many guns as you want, but keep them at the firing range. They should be outlawed on the street, in homes, etc.

 

Why should they be outlawed in homes? That's where a vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. keep them for self defense. Firing ranges aren't all that common either. So keeping your gun at a firing range is impractical. Technically they are outlawed on the street unless you are a police officer or have a license to carry...

[AlwaysFSX]

But i believe murder is wrong no matter the cause, unless it's an animal.

Because murdering an animal in cold blood isn't wrong? I like bacon as much as the next guy but I won't slaughter pigs for "fun."

[nicehat]

Yummy regulation. Yet there are still so many on the road without tags, insurance, or licenses. One is a privilege and one is a right. Apply the same train of thought to free speech and see if it's as appealing.

 

I guess thats why the First amendment details free speech, while the Second details the right to bare arms. There is order for a reason. Guns will never hold the same importance as a persons right to speech. Guns exist to take life or injure, which impinges on one's right to life as detailed by the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable".

 

The right to life >>>>> The right to take it away 

 

Therefor, guns which exist for that sole purpose, should be regulated....heavily. This has no effect on your right to bare them.

[xXcorsairXx]

Why should they be outlawed in homes? That's where a vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. keep them for self defense. Firing ranges aren't all that common either. So keeping your gun at a firing range is impractical. Technically they are outlawed on the street unless you are a police officer or have a license to carry...

I Have my shotgun for home defense that's it and when i take it to the gun range. But when i can buy a pistol i will conceal carry it no matter what because i am not a criminal. And rifles are pretty much banned on the street cops will harass the shit out of you if you open carry a pistol and a rifle. 

[xXcorsairXx]

I guess thats why the First amendment details free speech, while the Second details the right to bare arms. There is order for a reason. Guns will never hold the same importance as a persons right to speech. Guns exist to take life or injure, which impinges on one's right to life as detailed by the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable".

 

The right to life >>>>> The right to take it away 

 

Therefor, guns which exist for that sole purpose, should be regulated....heavily. This has no effect on your right to bare them.

Guns don't take life's or injure people..... People take life's. So i guess pencils and keyboards miss spell things also. We should ban keyboards and pencils guys.

[xXcorsairXx]

I guess we should ban cars too. Those things are dangerous! Why do you need one? Just get a bike and start your trek to work early.

Dude we should just ban pencils for miss spelling words also. 

[Blade of Grass]

Guns don't take life's or injure people..... People take life's. So i guess pencils and keyboards miss spell things also. We should ban keyboards and pencils guys.

Guns do not take lives directly (as in, they don't shoot themselves), but, last time I checked, if I point my finger at you and "pull the trigger" you won't be dead on the ground either.

[xXcorsairXx]

Everyone has a different opinion on things, lets keep it civil mate. 

 

We don't always see eye to eye. 

 

Carry on the discussion!

I just cant stand the FAQ that these clowns are that dumb.

[xXcorsairXx]

Well,  statistically speaking it is not about absolutes but about rates.  There will always be guns, but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact.  So all my questions are not to prove anything other than to get people to think about prevalence and the effect that has on outcomes. If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29.  Given that majority of people don't shop on the black market that will significantly impact gun related deaths. 

 

The classic example is Australia with 1.06 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, and the USA is 10.4.  That's tens times higher.  In fact if you look at any country with loose gun control you can see that the gun related death rate is significantly higher than countries with gun control.

That whole last sentence there is a lie. In Australia gun deaths wen't up from criminals breaking into their house and shooting them. 

[xXcorsairXx]

If there are 89 guns per 100 people, and you make 60 of them illegal, how do you propose the government acquire those 60 guns? People won't just give up their rights. This has been made evident in the State of New York just recently. "Assault weapon" registration was made mandatory and over a million NY residents didn't do it.

If you make pissing in the ocean illegal it won't filter out the piss that's already there, nor stop more people from continuing to piss in the ocean.

Exactly If they try to take my guns ill be sure to go out shooting.

[nicehat]

Guns don't take life's or injure people..... People take life's. So i guess pencils and keyboards miss spell things also. We should ban keyboards and pencils guys.

 

Whats the purpose of a gun versus the purpose of a pencil and keyboard. 

 

A gun is designed to kill something. Its not designed to cut steak, help you write a song, or help you increase your gas mileage. 

[cae]

A gun is designed to kill something.

 

They're designed to accurately fire projectiles. Humans choose if and when and where and at what they are fired at.

[Guest Kloaked]

I guess thats why the First amendment details free speech, while the Second details the right to bare arms. There is order for a reason. Guns will never hold the same importance as a persons right to speech. Guns exist to take life or injure, which impinges on one's right to life as detailed by the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable".

 

The right to life >>>>> The right to take it away 

 

Therefor, guns which exist for that sole purpose, should be regulated....heavily. This has no effect on your right to bare them.

 

Um. What?

[nicehat]

They're designed to accurately fire projectiles. Humans choose if and when and where and at what they are fired at.

 

Um. What?

 

No. Firearms are designed to kill or injure. The recoil before putting more rounds down field, the shattering of a bullet on impact, hollow points, full metal jackets. I mean honestly, are you really going to tell me that guns arnt designed with the express intent on killing or injuring another person or thing??

Saying a gun just fires projectiles is like me saying that a howitzer does the same . Saying a gun just fires accurate projectiles is like saying the same for a cruise missile. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bq8OL0iNrA

 

Of course the humans behind it decide to kill someone or something. But it makes that idea come to fruition when they have a tool that is expressly designed for that purpose. Those soldiers decide to drop rounds on enemies with a tool that allows them to. If there is not tool, the intent is harder to implement. I really dont think I should have to explain the extent of Columbine or Sandy Hook would have been limited if cleavers were used. Or how just a few hours ago this may have been prevented or minimized

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fedex-shooting-results-multiple-injuries/story?id=23511924

Edited April 29, 2014 by ixi_your_face
edit for yay.

[ixi_your_face]

Just a friendly reminder to keep this thread clean and respectful. 

 

I'll be watching this thread.

[TetraSky]

I'm not for or against guns, but I do believe there should be thighter control on who can be allowed to own one. There should be at the very least a mental illness exam, followed by lessons on safety and how to properly handle the weapon, instead of just giving a gun to whoever wants one without much trouble.

[Guest Kloaked]

No. Firearms are designed to kill or injure. The recoil before putting more rounds down field, the shattering of a bullet on impact, hollow points, full metal jackets. I mean honestly, are you really going to tell me that guns arnt designed with the express intent on killing or injuring another person or thing??

Easy there. I'm pretty sure you sounded just as bad just now.

Saying a gun just fires projectiles is like me saying that a howitzer does the same . Saying a gun just fires accurate projectiles is like saying the same for a cruise missile. 

No, it's not.

 

Of course the humans behind it decide to kill someone or something. But it makes that idea come to fruition when they have a tool that is expressly designed for that purpose. Those soldiers decide to drop rounds on enemies with a tool that allows them to. If there is not tool, the intent is harder to implement. I really dont think I should have to explain the extent of Columbine or Sandy Hook would have been limited if cleavers were used. Or how just a few hours ago this may have been prevented or minimized

You're comparing a blatant war weapon with a civilian firearm. That's unfair because what you're doing is assuming everyone who has a legal CCW are looking for someone to kill.

I also don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this: criminals do not follow laws. I'm pretty sure you're right, if the kid had nothing but access to some knife, he wouldn't have gotten far at all. However, using Sandy Hook as an example for the rest of the country's law abiding citizens isn't fair.

I would also suggest that if there was a trained armed guard at the school, it would also have ended before it started, but that's also unfair of me to say as a fact because I don't know what in the world would have happened.

You cannot simply use tragedies such as Sandy Hook to get your point across about guns. There are plenty of cases of home invasions that could have gone wrong, but instead a family/family member decided to defend their house with firearms.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fedex-shooting-results-multiple-injuries/story?id=23511924

Don't ever cite ABCnews, Faux News Entertainment, CNN or MSNBC. Lol.

 

 

 

I'm not for or against guns, but I do believe there should be thighter control on who can be allowed to own one. There should be at the very least a mental illness exam, followed by lessons on safety and how to properly handle the weapon, instead of just giving a gun to whoever wants one without much trouble.

 

I agree. Most places already have to do background checks and make sure you know how to properly use and take care of a weapon, but there are loop holes that people are quick to jump though. I think they should be closed.

[FireFox]

Just a friendly reminder to keep this thread clean and respectful. 

 

I'll be watching this thread.

 

*offers goat sacrifise to please the mighty ixi,

 

Hail to the mighty ixi

[JustTooDank]

you do know what the difference is between an example used for explaining a concept and a prediction don't you?

Yes. Do you know the difference between a sound argument and a logical fallacy?