Some people use guns for hunting. Its arguable that in a lot of cases its used for self-defense. For example, a cashier having a gun at his side could ward off robbers who have gotten their guns illegally. A homeowner could have a gun to protect themselves from people who have guns. Gun control won't stop those dedicated enough to harm others.
Some people use guns for hunting. Its arguable that in a lot of cases its used for self-defense. For example, a cashier having a gun at his side could ward off robbers who have gotten their guns illegally. A homeowner could have a gun to protect themselves from people who have guns. Gun control won't stop those dedicated enough to harm others.
Some people use guns for hunting. Its arguable that in a lot of cases its used for self-defense. For example, a cashier having a gun at his side could ward off robbers who have gotten their guns illegally. A homeowner could have a gun to protect themselves from people who have guns. Gun control won't stop those dedicated enough to harm others.
I agree. That's where the control comes in. I'm not foolish enough to believe gun bans are a good idea, just stricter regulation. At this point, if I planned to kill someone, I could get a gun by tomorrow.
Some people use guns for hunting. Its arguable that in a lot of cases its used for self-defense. For example, a cashier having a gun at his side could ward off robbers who have gotten their guns illegally. A homeowner could have a gun to protect themselves from people who have guns. Gun control won't stop those dedicated enough to harm others.
So you don't think hunters kill their prey. I said a guns primary purpose is for killing, and you're only reinforcing my statement.
Had said robber, or home invader not had a gun in the first place they wouldn't probably committing the crime. The only reason they're committing the crime is because they have a gun, and even if it was obtained in an illegal manner, the amount of guns obtained that way would be significantly lowered due to the problems faced with trying to get the gun in ones hands. If you think that people who legally own guns don't sell them legally, than you're wrong.
I agree. That's where the control comes in. I'm not foolish enough to believe gun bans are a good idea, just stricter regulation. At this point, if I planned to kill someone, I could get a gun by tomorrow.
Yeah and I certainly don't agree with complete deregulation of firearms. I'm for things like stricter background checks and possible banning of assault rifles.
@pharoah: Killing a deer for food carries less substance than killing another human being in my eyes, lol.
It wouldn't be that hard considering how easily you can buy drugs off the deep web from the silk road. I don't know if that specifically exists anymore or not, but guns would become just like drugs in that sense.
Aside from destructive capacity, funds and skill to create, number in operation, and capacity....nothing. both are weapons.
At a basic level, the weapon doesn't matter. Wether they use a Nuke or a pistol, a mass murderer will mass murder. However, clearly on a grander scale, the tool DOES matter. A pistol will kill more people than fists. A nuclear bomb will do more than a pistol. Given that we know there will be people who will improperly use weapons, there are rules that regulate which weapons will and will not be taken from us
For example, with guns, we are not supposed to have automatic weapons. Though, I'm sure you know this.
My point was basically this: guns provide a method for someone to defend his or her self. Guns also provide a means for others to hunt game that might otherwise be harder to capture without the use of weapons [guns].
If someone has the desire to commit an act of violence, one will typically find a way to get what they want. For example, the number of people carrying arms illegally if not illegal weapons.
If you're willing to risk everything, for the most part you can kill anyone you want with a fairly good chance of success. Obviously provided you put on some level of planning into the attack.
yeah I would be pretty scared about living in the America right now..
Given that they are spying on your emails,phone texts, phone calls, facebook and ever other social networking bullshiz there is out there. There is no Privacy at all within America, they know your life better than you do..
and all the drugs they put your citizens on to 'help' you, but the drugs are only helping your problem while creating a physical adiction for the drug to continue to 'help' your problem... then they continue to take your money for problems that they caused.
The people have the power, and when they (goverment/army/cia/nsa/secret societys) take away your guns you will have no power to stand up to them.
The gun laws in the US are stupid in general. At least if someone has a knife, there's a chance of you being able to defend yourself. Whereas with a gun it's nearly impossible. The background checks need to improve before they allow people to have guns........
Statistically this is the safest time in history to be alive and violence across humanity is decreasing. Although given the access people have to the news media and the fact the news media focuses on isolated incidents of violence everyone thinks this is a violent time to be alive. Access to semiautomatic firearms and having several spare clips made it very convenient for Elliot Rodgers to commit a large scale massacre, moreover the damage he could have caused with a bat or a knife pales in comparison to the damage he could cause with two semiautomatic handguns.
That said he was psychopathic and likely would have found some other means of meeting his objective, a gun is convienient but not the only way to cause large scale damage. No one can say for sure whether stricter gun laws or outlawing guns would have altered the outcome of this tragedy.
This thread is not about DO THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN GUNS. Its about debateing whether they should be allowed or not.
Contrary to what many people believe the 2nd amendment was not written to ensure that people have the right to hunt or protect themselves. It was written primarily as a means of check and balance. If the government became out of control, the people would have a means to revolt and regain control.
It has a side benefit of allowing people to always be able to hunt, and defend their homes. But its main purpose is to help protect liberty.
So no state should be able to ban guns completely. They can restrict perhaps even heavily who gets guns.
In my opinion, the federal government should stay out of this issue completely. Blanket statements do not fit everyone.
This is a state by state issue.
If a state wants more restrictions then fine.
But here are some things to consider. Many years back, even at the time of the world wars, there were not mass shootings like this. Yet there were a lot of people who owned guns. It was not uncommon for a father to give his ten year old a gun. Some kids would even bring their guns to school. Many people had guns. Yet there were not these mass shootings quite like there are today(as far as I know).
So this brings into light something that comes into light if you just look beyond the immediate surface.
That there is something in society that is causeing more people to become mentally ill and murderous, that wasnt as strong as in the past.
One thing to keep in mind, is that all these shooters have been in their twenties or younger.
In this recent shooter, this guy stated in his manifesto that he feared the cops, and that they would arrest him before he was able to rampage. He feared he would not be able to take out many people before he was shot at. He was very careful to avoid any situation where there would be a cop(someone armed) to take him out.
Just think if you were a criminal about to commit a crime. Would you target the place that you know has no guns(gun free zone), or would you target the place that has guns, or you are uncertain? If you have half a brain you would pick the place without guns.
Guns are not, nor have not ever been the problem. It is people with murderous intent acquiring guns legally or illegally, going around shooting people. If guns were not available then they would just resort to something else. Perhaps a explosive.
The solution is to allow the different states to have their different laws. If they dont want unlicensed guns, then they can make a severe punishment or fine, for anyone who is found with a unlicensed gun.
In my opinion, every adult should be allowed to carry a gun if they want to. They should at least be able to carry it in their vehicle, and how far they can carry it should be up to their employers. The simple fact is, that until our defensive technologies advance greatly, the greatest defence against a weapon, is a fellow weapon.
People should be educated about guns...not fear them.
In conclusion here is some food for thought. When someone is going on a murderous rampage what do you do? You call someone/somegroup who also has a gun to help take care of the murderer. (usually known as the police.) So when a gunman is loose, you send a armed person to stop him.
The scene in the below video shows a unrealistic version of what would happen if everyone had guns.(unrealistic in many ways)(please try to just see the humor......)
You must be registered for see images
Lastly, just to show where im coming from. I do not own a gun. I have not fired guns very often.(other than perhaps a bb gun)(I shot a shotgun before at a summer camp).
So I dont really have a gun owner bias, as I do not own one. And I have limited experiance with them.
This fake sense of security we get for giving away our rights is a path to a dictatorship. I bet most of the mass-shooting convicts were on some psycho-active pharmaceutical "medicine". Crime rates will skyrocket if they ban guns. Like in Australia.
Anyone can attain a firearm and carry it around with self-defence purposes as their excuse for having one, but has it ever really been used for self-defence? Some idiot could go and kill someone using that weapon and say if was in self-defence, and yes it may have been, but they just killed a man. It isn't being used as self-defence as many people would say it is, it's being used as a weapon of murder and violence, self-defence or not. They really should ban the rights to guns worldwide, because in the USA with their laws, anyone, and I mean anyone, can walk into a store, buy a gun and carry it around. People take the use of that weapon much too lightly. If someone gets confronted and the person who is being attacked gets caught in the heat of the moment, gets his gun out and pulls the trigger, someone will wind up dead.
Either way, guns should be banned, regardless of the purpose they're being used for.
In fact, more people should own guns for their own safety.
You can't use that mentally~ill crap story for lying idiots like Rogers.
There are some mentally challenged people out there that do posses fire arms and they don't go around posting videos about their pathetic sexual frustration.
I mean look at him!
He had the mental ability to post a video about how many girls he got rejected by and post it on YouTube.
He's just one of those f*ckheads that watch to much TV and boast about becoming/being god after every DBZ show.
It's people like him that makes me want to shot him in the face... :|
It would be one less problem without him
Kill one maniac to save about 6 significant others.
In a perfect world, no. No weapons because no crimes. Evil exists. People need to defend themselves, but I think gun laws need to be very more strict so bad people won't be able to get them to begin with.
Yes they should. No matter what the occasional psychopath or criminal does. The threat of domestic tyranny and foreign invasion are the reasons we have the right to own firearms. For a country that had to fight off the empire that founded it in order to be fairly governed you would think it's citizens would have a better understanding of that.
Make no mistake there have been political plots before. Hell George W. Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush was a member of a group planning to stage a fascist coup.
