Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 2:33am

theEPICgameKING

theEPICgameKING

458 posts

So far we've been looking at the tactical aspects of guns and their control. But WHAT about the personal part? What do guns do to our SOULS? Guns make murder so easy, so quick, weatheras without one you'd have to use other weapons like a club or knife. Squeezing the trigger is a small motion. Swinging a club is a pretty big motion. So a person can kill way easier with a gun than with a club. Murder is the most defining moment of a person's life-you end someone's exietence! They could've done so much, loved someone, contributed to charity, whatever-and you are responsible for stopping all of that. People will miss that person, people will suffer-you will cause untold suffering. Unless you're not already a psycho, it shakes you up inside, fractures your head at least a little bit. And you enjoy it, you enjoy the rush of addrenaline and you realize you have the power over LIFE AND DEATH ITSELF! You can take life whenever you please! And a psychopath is born.

That's just the mental/emotional part! Assume you wanna kill someone. You're fat, out of shape. All you gotta do is buy a gun and use one hand to shoot. Well, you're still fat and out of shape. If you didn't have a gun, and assuming you wanted to kill him badly enough, you'd work out, get tough and muscular and in shape, and then rip his head off. Okay, he's still dead, maybe a bit more mess, but now you're a hulking mass of deadly muscle. Well, i'd rather be fit than flab.

What's this have to do with gun control? I just gave a whole bunch of evidence that guns are dangerous. They should be controlled.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 3:11am

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

They could've done so much, loved someone, contributed to charity, whatever-and you are responsible for stopping all of that.

Or they could have killed someone else eventually. Just saying.

But WHAT about the personal part? What do guns do to our SOULS?

Well, you'd first have to prove that souls exist, then shoot one and find out.

And you enjoy it, you enjoy the rush of addrenaline and you realize you have the power over LIFE AND DEATH ITSELF! You can take life whenever you please! And a psychopath is born.

1) Psychopaths are not inherently violent.
2) You don't just turn into a psychopath like that.
3) Psychopath /= mass murderer.
4) Google psychopath and at least read the wiki.

Assume you wanna kill someone.

And....we stop there. If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it unless stopped first. Doesn't matter if it's a gun or arson or a knife or a car or whatever else.

If you didn't have a gun, and assuming you wanted to kill him badly enough, you'd work out, get tough and muscular and in shape, and then rip his head off. Okay, he's still dead, maybe a bit more mess, but now you're a hulking mass of deadly muscle. Well, i'd rather be fit than flab.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that we should keep guns around so fat crazy people don't get fit and then go nuts with their huge muscles? Please, go dunk your head into a tub of cold water for a second.

I just gave a whole bunch of evidence that guns are dangerous.

No, you didn't. All you did was inaccurately portray psychopaths and then say fat people need guns to kill others.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 3:12am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,082 posts

Knight

A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.

Though I really don't like guns in the hands of everyone, I also advocate restriction instead of ban. Cars also kill thousands of people, and they're not banned. Car licences are probably way more restrictive than gun licences, time to adapt the situation.

Besides, as already mentioned, other objects like cars or in your example, watermelons, don't have the initial purpose to harm anyone. You can use anything as a weapon. But guns are here, usually, for self-defence and work by harming or killing people. Yet gun owners live way more risky than those without guns, as a burglar is more likely to shoot on someone that opposes a real threat instead of an unarmed one he can simply rob. Imo guns for self-defence kinda spoil their own purpose.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 11:06am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.

And here I come saying that restriction is better than an outright ban. But I had to stop posting on this thread because people kept being... well people...

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 11:53am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

And here I come saying that restriction is better than an outright ban. But I had to stop posting on this thread because people kept being... well people...

same here.
only do i want more restrictions then most of the people here.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 12:43pm

zombinator2000

zombinator2000

34 posts

Crimes happen quite often in gun-free zones.  In fact, if you aren't trying to mass murder people, anyone who had the mind to break the law wouldn't even need to bring a gun into a gun-free zone to be successful.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 1:22pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,082 posts

Knight

Crimes happen quite often in gun-free zones.  In fact, if you aren't trying to mass murder people, anyone who had the mind to break the law wouldn't even need to bring a gun into a gun-free zone to be successful.

No ****, Sherlock.

We never claimed restricting access to guns would do miracles. But every unnecessary death that can be prevented is worth it.

 

Posted Feb 10, '13 at 4:17pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

they use them because their victims have guns aswell. it's a circle of violence that has to be broken.
if their victims have no gun then they would not need a gun either. a small criminal will rather buy some drugs then a gun.
and if you as victim has no gun then there is no need for the criminal to shoot you. only if you as victim point a gun at him he might start shooting in reaction. escalating the whole situation.

Criminals have guns because other rival criminals have guns. Criminals have a whole lot more to fear from other criminals than any law abiding citizen.

Not really. Countries with less guns have lower gun homicide rates. It's pretty simple.

I looked up the homicide rate of the UK and their homicide rate is very low compared to the US but their gun ban hasn't seemed to affect it. I don't know, maybe the stats are wrong.

Killing sprees really aren't all that possible with other weapons, unless it's spaced out over time or bombs are used.

Yeah but what about the majority of gun murders that aren't part of killing sprees and massacres? Also, there have been mass killings with a machete in the US. You don't need a gun but they do make it easier.

I'm for stricter gun control. I think it should be a bit harder to get a gun. I'm not for banning anymore than the guns that are already banned.

 

Posted Feb 11, '13 at 10:32am

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

I looked up the homicide rate of the UK and their homicide rate is very low compared to the US but their gun ban hasn't seemed to affect it. I don't know, maybe the stats are wrong.

That's because as partydevil mentioned, we're a very violently culture. We praise strength, and standing up for oneself. Kicking the crap out of whatever guy tried to mess with you is met with pats on the back and cheers.

Violence begets violence.

Yeah but what about the majority of gun murders that aren't part of killing sprees and massacres?

Still easier to shoot someone than physically swing a blunt object. 1 finger pull vs full body motion, not to mention you can be quite far away.

I'm for stricter gun control. I think it should be a bit harder to get a gun. I'm not for banning anymore than the guns that are already banned.

I can agree with that, if reasons can be provided why certain guns shouldn't be banned. Or if increased regulation is implemented regarding more potentially dangerous weaponry.

 

Posted Feb 11, '13 at 9:09pm

zombinator2000

zombinator2000

34 posts

No ****, Sherlock.

We never claimed restricting access to guns would do miracles. But every unnecessary death that can be prevented is worth it.

Wait, hold on.  So if an unnecessary death occurs due to a rare misuse of a firearm, that outweighs those that die due to an increase in the homicide rate, even if the homicide rate overcasts the amount of unnecessary deaths that occur?

Heck,  you yourself just admitted that crimes happen commonly in a gun-free zone, which is basically an area of restriction for firearms.  Do you, then, consider the increase in the homicide rate necessary?

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!