ok great. but a ban or extremely hard laws to get them would reduce the chances of crime where guns are used. and they are used in alot of crimes.
Agree completely with you. One can't say 'it's useless because it doesn't completely eradicate the problem'. It's a start. Similar debate going on on the "Angry driver shoots egg-throwing teen". Could this incident have been avoided if guns had been banned? Maybe.... If not this one, many others could have....
Yes, that is true. That is until those who make and sell guns figure out good ways around your laws.
Some people always find their way around laws but the majority of your 'average' citizen wouldn't know where to start.... Get those out of the way and you already have a great reduction in gun crime.
personally I hate guns. They are intended for one purpose. To Kill. I would like to see extremely tough gun laws. much tougher then the ones already in place. and an all out ban on assault weapons like machine guns.
the second amendment right is as outdated as catholic priests not being allowed to marry. we shouldnt have the right to bear arms. it should be a privilege to those who qualify.
So you want an all out ban on machine guns and an all out ban on assault like "looking" weapons? Or are you just talking about fully automatic weapons?
lol I dont know. I'm not gonna break this down gun by gun.
Well that's what the last ban was on that was recently lifted, it only banned weapons that were perfectly legal because they "looked" like military weapons. You still can't get a real machine gun unless you have a Federal Firearms License, a ridiculous background check is conducted and an implant is put into your brain for tracking. Ha
A lot of people were really angry at this ban because it didn't achieve a thing except screw consumers and make enthusiasts really angry.
Guns are dangerous I'm not gonna church that up, but in the right hands they can be your savior, your deterrant, your hobby, your livelihood and a lot of fun too.
Well that's what the last ban was on that was recently lifted, it only banned weapons that were perfectly legal because they "looked" like military weapons. You still can't get a real machine gun unless you have a Federal Firearms License, a ridiculous background check is conducted and an implant is put into your brain for tracking. Ha
A lot of people were really angry at this ban because it didn't achieve a thing except screw consumers and make enthusiasts really angry.
Guns are dangerous I'm not gonna church that up, but in the right hands they can be your savior, your deterrant, your hobby, your livelihood and a lot of fun too.
well an all out ban is asking alot although I wouldnt be opposed. maybe I would be more happy with those same laws to get a machine gun apply to all guns. or something similar
I agree that guns should be a privilege, not a right. No one has "the right" to drive a car because it requires training. Without training and proper care, cars can be very destructive. They're responsible for many many deaths each year.
Guns (which are responsible for fewer deaths) should be treated in the same way. It's way too easy to legally obtain a gun. People should be required to pass some sort of real test, and not have a certain criminal background. I know some requirements exist already, but they're obviously not working as well as they probably could.
However, I don't believe in banning guns. If police and other government authorities have them, I want to be able to obtain them if I feel its necessary. The fact is about 99.9% of gun owners in the country aren't killing people with guns each year. If that number ever went down to an alarming value, then maybe i'd change my mind. I'm not making that percentage up either. Look at the statistics from the CDC for gun-related deaths and the estimates for the number of gun owners in America. There just aren't that many people dying from guns as there are cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
I agree that guns should be a privilege, not a right. No one has "the right" to drive a car because it requires training. Without training and proper care, cars can be very destructive. They're responsible for many many deaths each year.
Guns (which are responsible for fewer deaths) should be treated in the same way. It's way too easy to legally obtain a gun. People should be required to pass some sort of real test, and not have a certain criminal background. I know some requirements exist already, but they're obviously not working as well as they probably could.
However, I don't believe in banning guns. If police and other government authorities have them, I want to be able to obtain them if I feel its necessary. The fact is about 99.9% of gun owners in the country aren't killing people with guns each year. If that number ever went down to an alarming value, then maybe i'd change my mind. I'm not making that percentage up either. Look at the statistics from the CDC for gun-related deaths and the estimates for the number of gun owners in America. There just aren't that many people dying from guns as there are cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
this is true. especially your last statement.
but cars, alcohol, ciggys, etc arent specifically made to kill. as much as alcohol and ciggys do kill, they are designed for pleasure. people choose to use them. people dont choose to get shot.
the percentage of deaths with a car is much higher because everyone has one. of course the statistics will show that and rightfully should
but cars, alcohol, ciggys, etc arent specifically made to kill. as much as alcohol and ciggys do kill, they are designed for pleasure. people choose to use them. people dont choose to get shot.
the percentage of deaths with a car is much higher because everyone has one. of course the statistics will show that and rightfully should
People don't choose to get hit by a car and die either.
The simple fact is 99.9% of gun owners aren't killing anyone with their guns. There's no way I can seriously look any of them in the eye and say "we have to ban guns". If guns served NO purpose as far as self-defense, then I might think about banning them. But in my eyes there's no valid reason why some jerk cop with an itchy trigger finger should be able to get one and not me.
personally I hate guns. They are intended for one purpose. To Kill. I would like to see extremely tough gun laws. much tougher then the ones already in place. and an all out ban on assault weapons like machine guns.
the second amendment right is as outdated as catholic priests not being allowed to marry. we shouldnt have the right to bear arms. it should be a privilege to those who qualify.
Concede what? That less guns means less gun crime? I certainly agree with that. Now, let me ask you something: how are you going to enforce your gun ban?
my point is to make those laws without loop holes or ways of "getting around them".
No ways to get around them? So you're going to actively ban the production of guns?
I'd like to reduce or take away that chance on both sides of the ball
Some people always find their way around laws but the majority of your 'average' citizen wouldn't know where to start.... Get those out of the way and you already have a great reduction in gun crime.
Are the 'average' citizens the ones committing gun crimes?
No law will stop or force people into doing anything. They are a deterrent or an inducement but a majority of people are law abiding and therefore it will stop people from getting guns.. not all of course but not everyone obeys the law.. you have to pay taxes, most people do, some don't....
ok great. but a ban or extremely hard laws to get them would reduce the chances of crime where guns are used.
Sounds perfectly logical and reasonable. Unfortunately it isn't true. I can show you instances where violent crime rose after gun bans. I can show you cities with the highest violent crime rates and show you they they also have the strictest gun measures.
Can you show me proof of your statement?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
No law will stop or force people into doing anything. They are a deterrent or an inducement but a majority of people are law abiding and therefore it will stop people from getting guns.. not all of course but not everyone obeys the law.. you have to pay taxes, most people do, some don't....
it stops the people who you want to have guns from not getting them. Criminals will not turn them in..
Are the 'average' citizens the ones committing gun crimes?
Just scan news reports, etc. A lot of gun crimes are not committed by hardened criminals but are 'opportunistic'. If they did not have a gun readily available, the outcome may have been different.
Just scan news reports, etc. A lot of gun crimes are not committed by hardened criminals but are 'opportunistic'. If they did not have a gun readily available, the outcome may have been different.
it stops the people who you want to have guns from not getting them.
I don't want anyone to have guns.... and I fully understand that hardened criminals will find ways to have guns.
In the UK, they had a 'knife' amnesty... thousands of unlawful knives were turned in.. these were most probably from kids, etc. and not your violent criminal, but in the end, those were thousands of knives out of volatile hands.
I don't want anyone to have guns.... and I fully understand that hardened criminals will find ways to have guns.
In the UK, they had a 'knife' amnesty... thousands of unlawful knives were turned in.. these were most probably from kids, etc. and not your violent criminal, but in the end, those were thousands of knives out of volatile hands.
no, it would not make it difficult. you don't want anyone to have guns, but you know that's impossible. so, don't make it, or wish for it to be, such that only criminals would have guns.
Comments
Agree completely with you. One can't say 'it's useless because it doesn't completely eradicate the problem'. It's a start. Similar debate going on on the "Angry driver shoots egg-throwing teen". Could this incident have been avoided if guns had been banned? Maybe.... If not this one, many others could have....
Yes, that is true. That is until those who make and sell guns figure out good ways around your laws. But it would be a delightful 6 months.
They certainly are used in a lot of crimes, as both defense and offense.
I admire your ability to never fully concede. my point is to make those laws without loop holes or ways of "getting around them".
I'd like to reduce or take away that chance on both sides of the ball
Some people always find their way around laws but the majority of your 'average' citizen wouldn't know where to start.... Get those out of the way and you already have a great reduction in gun crime.
So you want an all out ban on machine guns and an all out ban on assault like "looking" weapons? Or are you just talking about fully automatic weapons?
yes
would have to draw the line somewhere I suppose on an all out ban. but whereever that line is drawn, I would want them extremely hard to get
So would you be in favor of allowing a semi-automatic assault rifle?
lol I dont know. I'm not gonna break this down gun by gun.
Well that's what the last ban was on that was recently lifted, it only banned weapons that were perfectly legal because they "looked" like military weapons. You still can't get a real machine gun unless you have a Federal Firearms License, a ridiculous background check is conducted and an implant is put into your brain for tracking. Ha
A lot of people were really angry at this ban because it didn't achieve a thing except screw consumers and make enthusiasts really angry.
Guns are dangerous I'm not gonna church that up, but in the right hands they can be your savior, your deterrant, your hobby, your livelihood and a lot of fun too.
well an all out ban is asking alot although I wouldnt be opposed. maybe I would be more happy with those same laws to get a machine gun apply to all guns. or something similar
Guns (which are responsible for fewer deaths) should be treated in the same way. It's way too easy to legally obtain a gun. People should be required to pass some sort of real test, and not have a certain criminal background. I know some requirements exist already, but they're obviously not working as well as they probably could.
However, I don't believe in banning guns. If police and other government authorities have them, I want to be able to obtain them if I feel its necessary. The fact is about 99.9% of gun owners in the country aren't killing people with guns each year. If that number ever went down to an alarming value, then maybe i'd change my mind. I'm not making that percentage up either. Look at the statistics from the CDC for gun-related deaths and the estimates for the number of gun owners in America. There just aren't that many people dying from guns as there are cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
Are they killing people without guns then?
this is true. especially your last statement.
but cars, alcohol, ciggys, etc arent specifically made to kill. as much as alcohol and ciggys do kill, they are designed for pleasure. people choose to use them. people dont choose to get shot.
the percentage of deaths with a car is much higher because everyone has one. of course the statistics will show that and rightfully should
People don't choose to get hit by a car and die either.
The simple fact is 99.9% of gun owners aren't killing anyone with their guns. There's no way I can seriously look any of them in the eye and say "we have to ban guns". If guns served NO purpose as far as self-defense, then I might think about banning them. But in my eyes there's no valid reason why some jerk cop with an itchy trigger finger should be able to get one and not me.
Guns arent to blame for deaths arguments are...so maybe we should ban freedom of speech before we ban guns?
gun laws will not stop people from getting guns.
from my window to yours
Concede what? That less guns means less gun crime? I certainly agree with that. Now, let me ask you something: how are you going to enforce your gun ban?
No ways to get around them? So you're going to actively ban the production of guns?
Obviously, yes.
Are the 'average' citizens the ones committing gun crimes?
No law will stop or force people into doing anything. They are a deterrent or an inducement but a majority of people are law abiding and therefore it will stop people from getting guns.. not all of course but not everyone obeys the law.. you have to pay taxes, most people do, some don't....
Sounds perfectly logical and reasonable. Unfortunately it isn't true. I can show you instances where violent crime rose after gun bans. I can show you cities with the highest violent crime rates and show you they they also have the strictest gun measures.
Can you show me proof of your statement?
it stops the people who you want to have guns from not getting them. Criminals will not turn them in..
Just scan news reports, etc. A lot of gun crimes are not committed by hardened criminals but are 'opportunistic'. If they did not have a gun readily available, the outcome may have been different.
they would use a sword
but it can make it very difficult
I don't want anyone to have guns.... and I fully understand that hardened criminals will find ways to have guns.
In the UK, they had a 'knife' amnesty... thousands of unlawful knives were turned in.. these were most probably from kids, etc. and not your violent criminal, but in the end, those were thousands of knives out of volatile hands.
This is america its not the UK.
Hell jlew.. I find it scary how we're agreeing!!!
why? right to carry a gun is an amendment.
no, it would not make it difficult. you don't want anyone to have guns, but you know that's impossible. so, don't make it, or wish for it to be, such that only criminals would have guns.
from my window to yours