Forums → WEPR → Gun Control Legislation
| 92 | 23946 |
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
What if I said "I want a city!" By your reasoning, I deserve to get a city because I want one.
Make enough money, buy a city. Go ahead. I won't stop you.
I know I'm attacking a weak front here, but you're sounding like a class A, selfish, self-centered American.
Yeah, ad hominem attacks are a very weak front.
Your views are hypocritical
How? I've maintained the exact same point: Gun control of certain weapons is a pointless waste of time, money, and energy and needlessly lands people in jail, whereas gun control of other weapons is good.
Can you actually give us a good, solid reason a person should own an automatic weapon?
I have. Zero crimes are committed with legally owned automatic weapons. If 'it isn't a threat to the population or society' isn't a good reason, well, your idea of a good reason is vastly different to mine. You must not be the type that thinks of guns as potential recreation.
Most acquire them from drug dealers or steal them. The drug dealers typically get them from arms dealers who usually deal in stolen or imported weaponry. There is nothing you can do about that
Theres nothing we can do about it? We can't do anything about stolen weapons, imports or drug dealers? There has to be something we can do. We can't just look at three problems and say that theres nothing to do about it. Maybe for the stolen guns problem, require arms dealers to have a certain level of security. Maybe tighten security to specificly search for guns in imports if it is suspected. Maybe even legalizing some drugs, so the drug dealers won't really have much of a business. We need to at least try.
Theres nothing we can do about it?
Everything we can do is already being done.
Maybe for the stolen guns problem, require arms dealers to have a certain level of security.
Nobody robs a gun store. They're usually stolen in the course of a home invasion.
Maybe tighten security to specificly search for guns in imports if it is suspected
They already do that, even if not suspected. We simply do not have enough manpower to stop it from happening. The arms trade in America is very tightly connected to the drug trade. Ease off the drug war, and weapons imports will go down along with the drugs. Drugs make the money, the money pays for guns.
We need to at least try.
Short of calling in the bulk of the US Military to patrol the border and the streets, there is nothing we can do that isn't already being done.
If it doesn't harm anyone, why should we ban them? Well, I don't see a reason why to have them since guns are made to kill and amusement isn't dependent of guns. However there are reasons for restricting the big gun industries. Let's just say that if you think they solely sell to civilians in countries at peace, you're a tad utopian..
Ease off the drug war, and weapons imports will go down along with the drugs. Drugs make the money, the money pays for guns.
I did suggest that...
How? I've maintained the exact same point: Gun control of certain weapons is a pointless waste of time, money, and energy and needlessly lands people in jail, whereas gun control of other weapons is good.
So which guns do you support the control of?
Everything we can do is already being done.
Hardly.
For whatever reason, the Old English, the Russians, even the Romans have kept better control of uprisings and illegal actions than your country has. That probably had something to do with the fact they executed the culprits and associators.
"All persons convicted of piracy, or aiding a person convicted of piracy, or associating with someone convicted of piracy, shall be sentenced to hang by the neck until dead."
That kept a lid on it.
So which guns do you support the control of?
Yes, pray tell.
Let's just say that if you think they solely sell to civilians in countries at peace, you're a tad utopian..
They aren't. They're primarily sold to militaries. In fact, come to think of it, big guns are only sold to the military. I have yet to meet somebody with a 155mm howitzer in their garage.
Well, I don't see a reason why to have them since guns are made to kill and amusement isn't dependent of guns.
Reason: Fun. Guns are fun. Most people with guns are peaceful. Most violent people with guns have illegal guns, because they're likely already barred from gun ownership. Ergo, legal guns aren't used to kill people most of the time. Certain categories are nearly or at zero, like legally owned machine guns.
I did suggest that...
As do many. This is a point of consensus for most people with a brain.
So which guns do you support the control of?
Pistols. I like pistols, but the fact is, they're concealable. I like the current rulings on pistols, as they automatically bar the most at-risk category from legally purchasing them (18-25, most of the criminal element of this category are convicted of felonies long before 21). They account for nearly 90% of gun crime, thus making me like the idea of controlling them.
Oh, and here's the breakdown of gun crimes by weapon: Pistols 88.2%, shotguns 5.7%, long rifles 4.7%, and then everything else.
For whatever reason, the Old English, the Russians, even the Romans have kept better control of uprisings and illegal actions than your country has.
Uprisings? Romans? Russians? Are you insane? We've had one major uprising in 200 years. I'd say we're doing good.
As for illegal action, we're about the same with Russia, and the Romans don't exactly have existing records on that. The Old English? We did get evolve our mentality from them, you know. Them and the Germans.
Oh, one more point I forgot on the long guns stat:
Long rifles include assault rifles. That's kind of important. As I said on an earlier post in the thread, assault rifles account for (in my estimate, this is possible flawed) a third of that. Most long rifle murders, do to the nature of the weapon, are likely of domestic reasoning (i.e. pissed off husbands/wives). They aren't particularly common in organized or random crime, as they take skills that most gangsters don't possess to operate.
They aren't. They're primarily sold to militaries. In fact, come to think of it, big guns are only sold to the military. I have yet to meet somebody with a 155mm howitzer in their garage.
Right, nor have I seen anyone drive with a private tank around the streets. But that was not my point, I strayed away from the question about armed civilians. What I meant this time is the whole industry of armament and all the implications, that make it morally wrong to support it without good reason. Weapons are designed to kill people, and yes, you'll find plenty of other stuff to kill people with, but the weapon industry is specifically built on wars and corpses. The Bush family sold weapons to Osama before they started hating on each other, Russia hinders Europe to do anything about Syria because they sell weapons to Assad. And those are only some of the more obvious examples. Even though the average civilian will not kill anyone with a gun, I think it is morally wrong to employ guns if it is not strictly necessary. 'because it is fun' is not enough of an argument in that context, at least that's how I see it.
Weapons are designed to kill people, and yes, you'll find plenty of other stuff to kill people with, but the weapon industry is specifically built on wars and corpses.
And wars and corpses aren't going away any time soon. The second nobody is ever killed by firearms again, then it will be time to give them up. Until then, fun and danger will make love to each other among the sane ones, and violence and killing among the not-so-sane/moral.
The Bush family sold weapons to Osama before they started hating on each other, Russia hinders Europe to do anything about Syria because they sell weapons to Assad. And those are only some of the more obvious examples.
I would actually like a link on the Bush one, because that's the first I've heard that one.
More importantly, those are militaries. They have, quite literally, zero bearing on an armed civilian population. They will be made regardless of if we have nuclear weapons or water guns.
Even though the average civilian will not kill anyone with a gun, I think it is morally wrong to employ guns if it is not strictly necessary. 'because it is fun' is not enough of an argument in that context, at least that's how I see it.
Don't actively try to bring your own morality and force it upon others who don't share the same views, especially when your morality isn't backed up by statistical evidence. Gun rights are not a morality issue, they have no room for personal feelings or views. They are a logical, objective issue. If morality was the main backer, you would have some places with Atomic Annies and others completely devoid of legally owned weapons.
The only basis upon which laws should be created is the basis of statistical evidence and evaluation of risk. These do not need to be such static issues. If automatic weapons, for instance, were fully legalized and machine gun murders went through the room immediately following this legislation, I would immediately kick myself and start a political career to fix the failure. Of course, they wouldn't, because machine guns would remain prohibitively expensive and it wouldn't make sense for criminals to buy them when they can buy twenty pistols and ten shotguns for the same price.
This is not a necessity issue. People have different tastes in what is fun and what isn't. If some people like shooting things, then let them. If there is no logical or statistical evidence that what they're doing will hurt other people, then stopping them is a pointless, costly, and restrictive practice. It doesn't matter what they use their weapons for, so long as they aren't hurting anybody, going after them is just going to cost money we don't have, and likely just lead to a very sour taste in their mouth, and the mouths of everyone involved.
If you don't like the practice, just avoid it. Go after issues that actually matter, such as stopping the illegal gun trade, not the legal one.
I suppose using a powerful, repeating weapon on a defenseless, easy target, made of foam, wood, or otherwise, has some merit.
Though these weapons have no classical edge, let alone any small amount of taste in them, I concur that the statistics do lean towards "It doesn't matter"
But hey, old habits die hard.
Come to think of it, so do people.
Though these weapons have no classical edge, let alone any small amount of taste in them,
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Come to think of it, so do people.
You would be surprised. :3
I would actually like a link on the Bush one, because that's the first I've heard that one.
I think he's referring to the Soviet war in Afghanistan which started at the end of 1979 and ended at the start of 1989. George Bush Sr. was in office for about a month, and that was when the Soviets were almost completely out. The arms supplying was mostly done during Reagan's administration.
This is kind of relevant, and I am board as hell so I thought I would bring this back a bit. I was going threw the news, and read something somewhat similar to the theater incident, a boy in China, that is a 17 year old boy, killed 8 people with "just a knife", injuring 13 in all. That is more then most shooting cases, so logically I put that we ban all knives. After all, what purpose do knives have other then cutting?
You must be logged in to post a reply!