guns and bullets

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

fife wrote:

I agree that it does still boil down to the person but restricting access to thinks that have no benefit to society is a good thing. I wrote this in another place. just because people might use bombs if guns are not available doesn't mean that we should allow people to carry bombs around.

Well you can certainly buy everything legally to make a b word.
And you can not take away someones rights because some people are stupid or crazy ...this, in the case of guns.
It is our basic right to protect ourselves and should remain so.

OK enough of this, to carry a fully armed explosive around with you IS illegal, there are a number of tough laws and regualtions in place to stop this from happening, which is at polar opposites to your view on the control of guns. - a very redundant example.

Also - "And you can not take away someones rights because some people are stupid or crazy" - yes you can, it happens all the time - hospital, prison, power of attorney etc...

Fact is, according to the current system of acquiring firearms in Arizona, this guy was deemed to be a "responsible" gun owner, hind sight has proven otherwise - the horse has bolted. So my question is - who would benefit from stricter / tighter gun laws? (the answer I should hope is self evident)

Who would not benefit from tighter gun controls? Surely one side would out wiegh the other?

This guy purchased a firearm legally, that would suggest to me that there is a problem with the law.

Excellent post. There is a problem. 6 people died including a nine year old girl. To the gun advocates, do you at least think there is a problem with the current laws about obtaining a firearm?

HeidiJam wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

Fact is, according to the current system of acquiring firearms in Arizona, this guy was deemed to be a "responsible" gun owner, hind sight has proven otherwise - the horse has bolted. So my question is - who would benefit from stricter / tighter gun laws? (the answer I should hope is self evident)

Who would not benefit from tighter gun controls? Surely one side would out wiegh the other?

This guy purchased a firearm legally, that would suggest to me that there is a problem with the law.

WOW I did not know someone could be this stupid an illogical...
If you take away gun from everybody and make it illegal, law abiding citizens (the majority) will not have guns for fear of breaking the law. Now criminals will get all the guns (blackmarket) and make it much easier for them to commit crimes especially breaking into houses/violent crimes, because they will know that most everybody will not have a gun to protect them selves. How many people will fight back with a gun to their head???

[/quote]

America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).

The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).

There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.

But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???

Godfather. wrote:

some of the same people that would do away with guns are the same people that want to legalize drugs,
I can tell you that Drugs and guns are just about one in the same when we talk about death caused by drugs and crimes committed for drugs with guns or even with out guns.
a person can be responsible with a gun but you can't say the same about drugs in general.
everybody wants issues to be resolved in their own way with their own idea of how it should be done but they fail to see the big picture,meaning violence across the board or the end result of their ideas and opinions, there is no common ground for most people they believe that their idea is the only creditable solution, if you want a perfect world or country for that matter all these things need to be taken into consideration along with a persons rights..that 300 year old piece of paper signed by the forefathers of our country. :shock:
Godfather.

I don't know, I know a lot of people who drink wine and are responsible. FFS, half the people I know smoke pot, and whether or not they do is not (IMO) an indication of whether or not they are responsible. Many do so while still doing well in school/good jobs.

Speaking of 'home invasions' I have a funny story that could've been not so funny if a gun was involved. My family was sitting around the dinner table and we saw someone jump over our fence and into our backyard (coming near our back sliding glass door). Guy was about 19 or 20, and he was running. Now, if I was ''proactive', should I have taken out a weapon? Maybe... We just asked 'what the fuck are you doing?'.. Apparently he was a friend of the neighbour and a little kid across the street thought it would be funny to chase him with a watergun/water balloons. When we walked him out, we saw the little shit with a water gun. What is now a funny story could've been a tragedy with guns involved.

I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?

Thank you

HeidiJam wrote:

How do you define who is a responsible drive? How do you guarantee that only those people can have cars? And how do you guarantee those people stay responsible? Answer you can't try, but only with more stringent driver liscense laws, and thats my point. You could do this with a many number of items, There are a million things out there that can kill people. Who do you deem is responsible to only have these things?

Your post supports my position much more than it does yours. All you're doing is begging the question, and suggesting that regulating things that can potentially kill people is the responsible action. Thank you.

That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.

pandora wrote:

You know if some can't get a gun then it will be a bomb or a car driven into a crowd of people. If someone wants to kill because they hate there is no stopping them.
Taking guns away from peaceful law abiding people is not the answer to hate.

You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.

HeidiJam wrote:

WOW I did not know someone could be this stupid an illogical...

I'm going to beat Kat to the punch here. There's no need for insults - just because we have differing opinions doesn't mean we can't respect other people's. Keep it clean - let's not get another thread locked, just because people can't have an intelligent debate without getting personal

HeidiJam wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).

The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).

There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.

But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???

There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.

are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?

HeidiJam wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).

The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).

There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.

But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???

There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.

I can't speak for others here but i do know that its people that shoot guns and hurt people that why we put them in prison and not just the gun. but you must see that guns make it easier for people to kill others. it's not separated. its a relationship.