Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun Control Legislation

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 10:50am

samiel

samiel

415 posts

personaly i stand by the logic that steel is nothing without the flesh that wealds and that people that say that guns kill are wrong that its the people that kill guns are tools for the intentions of the user and that gun bans and gun control are unproperly used and moniterd thats were the black market comes in people that really to get a weapon can what are your thoughts

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 11:18am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,306 posts

Knight

I personally have never seen a gun running around killing people. I know what you mean, but it just sounds silly^^

I guess one gun per household or something like that is ok, but you can't deny that in America guns are simply too easily available for everyone. Self-defence is good, hunting, if you have to, but more than that is irresponsible. I'm not putting general blame on guns for all the shootings, I'm aware that some people simply are crazy. But by supplying the plebe with so many firearms, you are, if not increasing the amount of shooting, surely increasing the amount of victims per shooting.

Total gun bans will as you said lead to an increase of the black market demand, that is not what we want. But a certain gun control/restriction is necessary. Most normal people will hesitate or won't dare to get illegal guns just for fun.

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 11:34am

zakyman

zakyman

1,682 posts

There need to be restrictions on guns. We cannot have the civilian population armed with anything more than pistols or hunting rifles. Anything else is just begging to create a shooting disaster like the recent one in Colorado.

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 11:34am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

5,378 posts

i cant really say what i think. i personally HATE weapons and i think a place would be much more quiet without guns. also, even though guns themselves dont kill they are used to kill and people will have a harder time to kill without them.

still... without weapons... its usually those who are physically strong who can do whatever they want to. weapons give those who arent a chance to fight them and defend themselves.

i just made up a law and who knows... maybe its not a bad one.

if a person uses a GUN to commit a crime he gets a much worse penalty (maybe even going to jail forever) even if its just a small crime. that way those who decide to take the risk and own a gun probably wont ruin their lives by using it for crime.

looking back... this law does seem kind of stupid. im really not sure what else i can say about this topic

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 12:30pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

There need to be restrictions on guns. We cannot have the civilian population armed with anything more than pistols or hunting rifles. Anything else is just begging to create a shooting disaster like the recent one in Colorado.


I don't see your point. Are you saying that he would not had killed a bunch of unarmed people if he "only" had a handgun? When it is a shooting like that, it really does not matter what he is armed with.
 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 12:45pm

zakyman

zakyman

1,682 posts

When it is a shooting like that, it really does not matter what he is armed with.


He had multiple guns, of different types. One pistol, one semi auto rifle, and a shotgun. Had he only had the pistol, more people could have either fled the theater, or perhaps someone would have stood up to him and perhaps knocked him flat on his ***. It would have taken more time to shoot the victims he did, so more could have escaped.
 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 12:47pm

Jeff1999

Jeff1999

1,188 posts

People. There can and cannot be bad things about guns. Hunters need guns to get boars in forests. Hunters are good people and use guns for the right purposes. But there are some mean people who use guns to kill people. In Latvia there are at least 2 people dying in 1 day because of murderers, and sometimes the murderers use guns to kill. I'm vry sure my country won't exist for long now. Latvians are scared of russians, because russians have better gun technologies then we do and the war will soon start. I'm scared of russians too because of their great weapons and that stuff. So I would lke to say that if we would give guns ONLY for hunters who are using guns for the necessary purposes, no war and bank robbering would exist. But what can we do about it?

Thank you for reading all this... thing.

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 1:05pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

He had multiple guns, of different types. One pistol, one semi auto rifle, and a shotgun.


Of course he did, he was completely insane. ...Do you think he used them all at once? He could only use one at a time, the only thing that would change would be rate of fire, damage done, accuracy, and ammunition. There would really be no point in bringing more then one gun...

Had he only had the pistol, more people could have either fled the theater, or perhaps someone would have stood up to him and perhaps knocked him flat on his ***


....Did you just suggest that a bunch of unarmed, untrained, and frightened out of their mind movie goers could take down an insane armed man? Here lets try something. Get a dozen or so friends over and play a game of tag. Have one person against the rest of the other people, and have them surprise the rest of the people in the dark while they are watching a movie. If he snaps at them, they have to lay down, no matter what distance they are away from him. They can tag him back, but it takes multiple tags to get him down, and he can also tag them back. How many people do you think he would take down? Do you think you could even tag him? Assuming that someone armed with "Just a pistol" could be taken down by an unarmed man is simply insane.

It would have taken more time to shoot the victims he did, so more could have escaped.


Why do you assume that his pistol would be slower then his other weapons? His rifle probably had a faster rate of fire, to be sure, but he probably would use that first, and considering the fact he was untrained and coming into a dark building from a light room, it would mean his aim would be terrible. He could potentially kill more people if armed with the rifle, but the fact that he brought other guns shows that he did not know how to use it or did not have enough ammo, either of witch would make it useless on it's own. The shotgun probably had a LOWER rate of fire, assuming that it did not have as big a clip as the other guns did, if any, it would take significant time to reload between shots. But of course the damage done would likely be worse then the pistol. The pistol is typically a civilian weapon, so it would be more likely for him to be trained it it, as well as easy to conceal and probably had a high rate of fire and decent clip. Not to mention the bullets are a lot cheaper, if anything he would have done more damage if he was armed with only a pistol.

Why would you think that a pistol would give the people more time?
 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 1:57pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,306 posts

Knight

Just one question... American government and FBI and all that are usually crazy about safety and control and fiche everyone, follows closely every suspicious person sometimes only because of the name and even ban Kinder Egg's because apparently Americans can't reasonably eat what all Europeans eat..

.. but then again, that one guy could buy all those weapons (legally) in a short time and used them at a shooting two months later. And noone was overseeing him? So when someone carries a Kinder Egg when going to America, he could be intenting to kill someone and has to be fined thousands of dollars, but a regular citizen can buy several weapons at once without making anyone raise the eyebrow?

See why a more reasonable control could be of help here?

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 2:08pm

BRAAINZz

BRAAINZz

797 posts

Kinder Egg's because apparently Americans can't reasonably eat what all Europeans eat..


They just can't read "Don't give to children under 3. Small parts are considered CHOKING HAZARD."

I guess one gun per household or something like that is ok,

That would be nowhere near enough for people who would act like me and collect them, for use at a firing range or whatnot.

I just think they should make it a little but harder to get guns, more licenses maybe. In Canada, we need two different licenses for something as small as a Handgun. The first license is for semi-automatic/manual rifles and shotguns. Any other weapon is classified as restricted. Including Pistols, because they can be concealed.

That being said, our government just erased the countries whole gun registry and all the provinces now have to re-list everything with none of the original data.

We also can't have weapons in public, aside from ranges, and private property.
 
Reply to Gun Control Legislation

You must be logged in to post a reply!