Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Feb 12, '13 at 2:56pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,590 posts

Okay, it's really pretty hard to make me mad, but this thread is doing it.

How many times have we said that we do not advocate a gun ban, just increased restrictions?

How many times have we said that violence is not caused by guns, but people?

How many times have we said that banning guns will not help anything, only change the problems?

How many times have we repeated ourselves that we're repeating ourselves?

This is just ridiculous.

 

Posted Feb 12, '13 at 3:20pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,590 posts

Your views are just as bad as people who want guns completely illegal. Extremes are very often a poor response.

Please quote where he said that, because I'm pretty sure he has expressly said multiple times that he does not advocate making guns illegal to have, just much more strict control on them.

Also, for the who knows how many times, the rational people are advocating increased regulation and restriction, not complete illegalization.

More than a basic background check should be necessary when purchasing something that can potentially be used as a weapon of murder.

All you've shown is that you and people with similar anger issues can't be trusted to own a gun.
That doesn't mean that no one should be able to own a gun.

I'll state it clearly so you don't lump me in with the extremist people.
There are different stances than simply "no guns" or "everyone should have a gun."

My view is that people should be allowed to own guns (not anything like a rocket launcher or automatic machine gun) if they are qualified to do so. I'm not saying that everyone should have a gun, or that people need guns, or that you should use a gun if you have one. I do not think making guns illegal will prevent crime or lessen it. I do think we need stricter gun laws so that there are not as many out there for criminals or crazy people to get a hold of.

Same goes for anyone with any weapon, even things that you wouldn't normally consider a weapon.

Guns make it easier to kill. They don't make it easy. There's the entire psychological component you're forgetting about. Anyone who could use any weapon, gun or no, to kill multiple people without reason is already messed up to begin with.

Again, all that proves is that you shouldn't have a gun if you can't control yourself. Not everyone is like that.

You all seem to be scared that if you had a gun you would end up killing/seriously harming someone. To that, all I have to say is...don't get a gun? Is it really that hard? If you know you can't handle something, don't get it? That also doesn't mean that just because you can't handle it means no one else can either.

Of course everyone feels angry, frustrated, or insulted at some point. That doesn't mean we'd kill those who made us feel that way if we had a gun.

There's also simply target shooting or whatever sports wise for why people might want to own a gun.

Yes, guns are more dangerous than knives. Yes, restricting who has a gun needs to be done. However, there is no reason why someone who is responsible should not be allowed to own a gun for sporting/home defense purposes if they want to. Further, there are good reasons to allow qualified individuals to carry firearms on the off chance that someone does get a hold of some illegal automatic gun so they at least stand a chance at defending themselves if it comes down to it.

Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go on a murder rampage.
Just because someone shoots a gun doesn't mean that they're aiming for a kill shot either.

Anyways, long story short, the real issue is guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Our ideas of what methods are better may be different but I'm sure that we all agree people shouldn't be using guns to harm others.

Wholly banning doesn't even fully eliminate murders done with guns anyways, it just reduces them. The reason they're reduced is because there are simply less out there. The same effect can be achieved without making guns illegal as long as there is strict gun control.

The reason "gun lovers" bring that up is that they're trying to show that crime and murder are still there in the pseudo absence of guns because people who argue that guns should be illegal often act like guns are the source of all violence and crime.

Yes, I know that. The point of the statement is to highlight that even if something is illegal, it is not gone.

1) That isn't a result of gun control, but an effort to reduce crime.
2) Strict gun control in a state isn't too effective when someone can just waltz over to a neighboring state and get a gun.

I don't agree with the reasoning that if we allow the government to take away our rights to have guns that they'll start taking away all our other rights too. Such is an actual slippery slope fallacy. However, I do not think that people should not be allowed to have guns.

There's also no need that everyone should have a gun, but if someone wants to have one and they can demonstrate that they know how to use it/own it safely and go through thorough background checks, then fine.

Less guns overall won't hurt anybody either.

We want more gun restrictions. We agree that the current state of affairs in the US in regards to gun policy is lacking.

However, we do not see why people who can prove themselves responsible and who wish to own a gun should not be able to do so.

In the case of a random shooting, yes, someone on scene with a means to defend oneself is better than waiting the few minutes it takes for the police to arrive. However, just having a gun doesn't guarantee that the civilian will win the shoot out. They're just going to get shot at first.

Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun.
I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well.
What we need is better control over the illegal guns out there, for the most part.

Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).

Either extreme is bad. Arguing that one side wants something one way doesn't take into account that the people who are that extreme are not the majority by any means.

Sure they can. That doesn't mean irresponsible gun owners still aren't a problem. More strict gun control means there's less guns out there for criminals to get a hold of, and still doesn't take away people's rights to own a weapon.

Small measures, you mean making sure idiots who can't safely handle a potentially lethal weapon aren't stockpiling them in their garage, where anyone can simply access them? You mean having more in-depth background checks, to make sure people who want to own guns aren't going to go on a rampage, even if it's a very small amount that actually do so? You mean making it so that weapons, which were made for war, are not so common it's extremely easy to get a hold of one?

Guns are not toys. Anyone who thinks they should be able to walk down the street and buy a gun does not have the right mindset. They are potentially lethal weapons. They should not be laying around the house, in reach of anyone. They shouldn't be stored with the ammo, and they shouldn't be played around with. If you don't take care of it properly, it can even malfunction.

I've said as much many times in this thread, banning guns does not make them disappear. I do not advocate a ban, I advocate more strict procedures to help limit the amount of guns available, and more measures taken to secure illegal firearms.

Quote me where I've said I think people shouldn't have guns. I have said exactly the opposite many times. Trained people carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, help prevent things like that. I have said this before. I've long thought it stupid that security guards at schools are armed with at most a taser.

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.

Multiple people have expressed over the course of this thread that they wish an increase in gun control. Not complete revocation. Only a small number have said no civilian firearms at all.

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.

This is how many times I ALONE have specifically said what it is we're talking about. NOT a complete ban.

Get It Through Your Skulls

 

Posted Feb 12, '13 at 7:19pm

hardigra

hardigra

191 posts

NOT a complete ban.

At first. In the future I bet gun control will be very strict... But things like this do NOT happen over night. I wouldn't be suprised if, in about, 50 years guns will be pretty much banned.
Its not the guns, but the people . there will always be idiots around, guns or not.

 

Posted Feb 12, '13 at 9:07pm

Blairlarson

Blairlarson

93 posts

Its not the guns, but the people

That is the truth it is not the guns but it is the person who has the guns that what people really have to think about.

 

Posted Feb 14, '13 at 8:25am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

At first. In the future I bet gun control will be very strict...

and whats wrong whit that? that is the goal, stricter gun control.
get rid of these amount of guns.

 

Posted Feb 14, '13 at 8:06pm

zombinator2000

zombinator2000

34 posts

The goal is to reduce crime.  It does not reach it's goal.

 

Posted Feb 15, '13 at 2:35am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,079 posts

Knight

The goal is to reduce crime.  It does not reach it's goal.

Reduce the crime, or reduce the amount of victims? Imo the latter's more important.

 

Posted Feb 15, '13 at 10:28am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

not everyone has the same goal.

anyway you probably will also think it has to reduce crime instantly. instead of years. (read a few pages plz.)

 

Posted Feb 16, '13 at 3:40am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,066 posts

It reduces murder. There's honestly no realistic situation I can think of, as the burglar (unless you're a veteran) is likely a better shot than you. So I'd say that if neither side has a firearm, the long-term outcome will prove to be far better. Anyway, guns are becoming outdated as armies turn to electronic warfare. Soon a gun will be recognised as the tool of a murderer.

 

Posted Feb 16, '13 at 4:04am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,066 posts

Sorry, very unclear. What I mean is that there are very few situations in which having a gun is likely to help you (the victim) when being robbed or assaulted. Perhaps you're being held hostage? You might kill someone, but chances are you'll injure someone and then be killed as "too much trouble". So you've prevented nothing and got yourself killed.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!