Forums → WEPR → Gun Control Legislation
| 92 | 23925 |
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
- 92 Replies
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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..
So we ban Kinder Eggs so our children don't die or something, and you ban guns. Then we are both happy!
If anything, wouldn't this be a post against Kinder Eggs?
.. 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?
Why would someone oversee him? I know how all of Europe hates freedom but loves Kinder Eggs, but why would we need someone following every person in the country?
Lets just look at my state to show that not everyone who owns a gun shoots random people. Montana has extremely lax gun laws, everyone I know owns at least one gun, and it is so prevalent here that Dish Network gave out fire arms as part of a package deal, get Dish get a gun. But I can not think of a single major shooting going on here, and we have less murders in our whole state per year then this one shooting had. So it is easily possible that it is not the guns doing the crime... So why would you watch them?
See why a more reasonable control could be of help here?
Maybe in the case of Kinder Eggs. But really, why do you care so much about chocolate and toys? What does it have to do with anything?
I know you come from a peaceful little county that comes with two cows per inhabitant, but the high number of shootings in America compared to the rest of the world isn't just per chance. We don't hate freedom but we feel a little uncomfortable when our neighbours have enough firearms to shoot down an entire village.
I'm just trying to understand the American mentality... another example of their paranoia, there was that guy who lives in America but went somewhere in South America for business issues I think, and they didn't let him back into the country. Why? He has a lot of tatoos. OMG he could be a member of a dangerous gang! Oh, he lives in America? Who cares...
You know, you're paranoic as hell as soon as it comes to nitwitty reasons why this or that could be a threat to the united states, but when someone buys a whole lot of guns and ammo, it's all fine and candy. I'm just trying to understand that.
I know you come from a peaceful little county that comes with two cows per inhabitant, but the high number of shootings in America compared to the rest of the world isn't just per chance. We don't hate freedom but we feel a little uncomfortable when our neighbours have enough firearms to shoot down an entire village.
And why is that? I am not sure why your nahbors would want to shoot down a village, or how big a village is, but I would assume that three nahbors only need three guns to shoot one down. Having two just kind of slows you down.
I'm just trying to understand the American mentality... another example of their paranoia, there was that guy who lives in America but went somewhere in South America for business issues I think, and they didn't let him back into the country. Why? He has a lot of tatoos. OMG he could be a member of a dangerous gang! Oh, he lives in America? Who cares...
Source?
You know, you're paranoic as hell as soon as it comes to nitwitty reasons why this or that could be a threat to the united states, but when someone buys a whole lot of guns and ammo, it's all fine and candy. I'm just trying to understand that.
And I can't understand Europe. Someone owns a 22? BY THE GODS, CALL THE COPS HE WILL SHOOT UP THE WHOLE VILLAGE! Terrorist bombs a train? *Yawn* looks like my train will be delayed today. A chocolate kill six kids a year? Well they must have been using it improperly, after all your not supposed to eat it like that, those are just isolated cases. It is not like everyone with a chocolate chokes. Some random guy shoots someone? Look, that must mean all guns are evil! Let us ban them all so this will never happen again!
Guns don't kill people, Kinder Surprise kills people.
i would like to state that this thread is for all things gun and gun related so let me bring up another point many people often misuse weapons and not criminaly just stupidly like holding a gun sideways or not aiming which can be dangerous to you and others as with holding a handgun sideways theres a possibility that two bullets fall in the chamber and the gun blows up in your hand or with not aiming you have a possibility to shoot someone on accident and to get back to another subject hears a thought some guns are operated diffrently and should require a diffrent license for example a gas operated semi automatic carbine can be turned into a fully automatic weapon and has far more bearing than a spring operated system for example a Colt M1911 or the bolt action system like a Mosin Nagant and a diffrent license should be required for these guns and this is just a question but i had heard that its eleagle to hunt with a reflex sight but i was talking to my step father and from what he understood as long as it doesnt cast a beam its leagle and that actualy brings me to my next point
weapon modifacations
laser sights,scopes,barrel chokes so on from what i understand a silencer is eleagle and there should also be a more lagitament market for upgrades and attachments what do you think
According to this article, there are about 8,700 murders per year caused by guns. The population of the U.S. is about 314,000,000.
Considering our population, we're doing pretty good.
Sure, I want to prevent as many deaths as possible, but I want to prevent these deaths without punishing innocent people. Most people who own guns aren't using their guns to commit crimes.
We should look at the reasons why people commit crimes. For example, many gangs use guns to defend their turfs so they can monopolize the drug trade, which is very profitable due to the black market. We can destroy that black market by legalizing drugs and giving these gangs less incentive to use guns.
What about armed robberies? If a criminal uses a legally owned firearm to kill someone during a robbery, it will be much easier to track the criminal. More so, if someone happens to be carrying around a firearm during a robbery, they'll have the opportunity to at least even the odds and protect innocent people.
Would the world be better off without guns at all? Probably. But guns exist, and they're not always used for evil. Many people use guns for sport, others use guns to hunt. And I believe almost every person who owns a gun, owns one for self defense purposes.
Source?
Here.
Sure, I want to prevent as many deaths as possible, but I want to prevent these deaths without punishing innocent people. Most people who own guns aren't using their guns to commit crimes.
As I already said, I aknowledge that it is reasonable to let everyone have a gun at home for self-defence, and maybe one for sport/hunting. I know people with guns aren't necessarily mad, but mad people with guns are bad. As I also already said, I'm sure that by allowing regular people to have all sort and quantity of guns they want, you will not necessarily influence the number of shootings but the number of victims per shooting.
You must be logged in to post a reply!