Forums → WEPR → What do you guys think about gun-control?
| 82 | 22620 |
I think we should have as little gun control as possible because the second amendment saysâ¦
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This pretty much means to things
#1 we need firearms to defend ourselves from our government (if it gets to oppressive)
#2 we need firearms to defend ourselves from other people (like in ww2 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they could have easily invaded America and could not have been stopped until Nevada )
I think there should be almost no gun control what do you think?
- 82 Replies
you don't see people running around everywhere with guns shooting everything that moves.
That's what I said.
During the peaceful about the death of a teenager which then lead to violence and looting which lasted about a week, the American government said that if they had a situation like this, a lot more people would have been killed if they tried to sort it out.
The main point I was trying to address earlier, is that the flow of guns in a country leads to more gangs being able to obtain large firearms and use it for their own means of violence. I agree with you that people need to protect their selves but I don't think that it should be with guns
The main point I was trying to address earlier, is that the flow of guns in a country leads to more gangs being able to obtain large firearms and use it for their own means of violence. I agree with you that people need to protect their selves but I don't think that it should be with guns
It's good to know that you'll be bringing a knife to a gun fight... what did you say your address was again, I need a new TV.
During the peaceful about the death of a teenager which then lead to violence and looting which lasted about a week, the American government said that if they had a situation like this, a lot more people would have been killed if they tried to sort it out.
Who's to say such a thing would have happened in the first place in America? You can speculate what would have happened all you want, but without it happening, it's merely speculation. The fact of the matter is that Americans aren't going around shooting everything that moves.
If you lived in a place where guns were illegal and you knew absolutely nothing about countries in which guns are legal, then it would make sense for you to come to the conclusion that gun legalization would lead to a nation of people shooting each other. However, the fact of the matter is that guns are legal and gun crimes aren't incredibly high. Gun crimes in America are fairly high, but the gun crimes tend to be highest in areas where guns are strictly controlled or in poor neighborhoods where gangs profit off of drugs, which is made possible through the drug war.
If there's any place in which guns are legal, yet gun crime are low, then we must determine why gun crimes are low and how we can achieve such freedom without the crimes. To outright ban guns is ridiculous because it's an unnecessary loss of freedom.
Well, as a bystander, i have to say that most of you who say that ther is no need of gun-control, are basing ther claims on laws from 1790! Dont you think that the world as advanced a little since than?
seconde thing - USA its the only country in the advanced world, wher peoples can just go to a shop and buy guns.
Safe defence? so why you need the police and the army? Its not the wild west anymore.
i agree, its everyone want to feel safe in case of a zomby apocalypse, but all of thuse guns who streaming the streests are sound to me a little wierd, and i live in Israel, no a peacfull Scandinavian island wher the main enemy is greenpeace.
let me say it this way - how hard is that for a 13 years old kid to find a gun and kill a bully he hate?
[quote][quote]let me say it this way - how hard is that for a 13 years old kid to find a gun and kill a bully he hate?
hey killersup kinda pissed killersup off.tons of 13 year olds have gus.tons of them! and yet no 13 year old bully is shot from any other kid.hmmmm.if a 13 year old has a problem then he either ends it with a punch or two or he stays away from the bully.or they exept their fate of being bullied.thats how it.pitifull system but that is how it works.13 year olds just don't bring guns to kill another 13 year old.true there are extremely rare casses but they are extermly small
if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. gun control is'nt going to reduce gun crime. It will just ensure that people will not have a way of prottecting themselves.
Dont you think that the world as advanced a little since than?
Yes, the government's guns got bigger. The law is in place to avoid a federal takeover or police state. It would be much more difficult to prevent without such a right.
how hard is that for a 13 years old kid to find a gun and kill a bully he hate?
Harder than simply grabbing a kitchen knife and getting the same results. A kid that young can't buy a gun in most states (I think it's legal in Alaska, even in Texas you'd need to be 18). Most adults are responsible enough to lock up their guns.
After a little incident just yesterday, I find this topic even MORE relevant to me.
My mom's boyfriend was sitting at a stoplight, and a very heavily intoxicated man decides to walk up and start beating out the windows on his brand new truck. Do you know what he does? He pulls out his nice and shiny M1911 .45 pistol, cocks it, and sticks it in the man's face. You know what the man does? Continues beating on the vehicle. Had the light turned green just three seconds later, this world would be without one more violent criminal. Had that light decided to stay red for one more minute and he not have had his gun, I honestly believe he would be dead or seriously injured, and most likely without a truck.
When the police are needed in five seconds, they are only five minutes away. They clean up the blood splatter and your corpse, maybe snapping a few photographs of your brutalized remains. They don't stop violent men from taking the only sure thing you have.
so why you need the police and the army?
The army is not going to stop a drunk and/or high person from shooting you and taking your car, and neither will the police.
let me say it this way - how hard is that for a 13 years old kid to find a gun and kill a bully he hate?
The kid has serious mental problems if he resorts to murder because somebody calls him names. As for the question: It depends on where they live. Inner city, anywhere west of the Mississippi, or Texas, it's very easy. However, getting that weapon to school and shooting them highlights my first point: They have serious problems. That kind of shooting is incredibly rare and unlikely. Does it happen? Sure it does. I would be more worried about said 13 year old getting a gun and shooting his drug rival.
is that the flow of guns in a country leads to more gangs being able to obtain large firearms and use it for their own means of violence
1. They are already illegal. This means no matter how many laws you put in place, they will still have them.
2. What do you mean by large firearms? Assault rifles? Do to the fact that assault rifles fall under the long guns category, only 3% of murders actually use assault rifles. This is assuming, of course, that murders with hunting rifles don't actually happen.
You all may be correct, but yet, all of this look very wierd for me. In israel, whenever needed, ther are a security mand with a gun. i belive that ther is no need of massive guns spread. Its work quite fine in alot of other counteries. Its may look hadny, but its dangeruse to the democratic socity in my opinion. freedome is not the only thing in democracy. its also safety and equality.
If there's any place in which guns are legal, yet gun crime are low, then we must determine why gun crimes are low and how we can achieve such freedom without the crimes. To outright ban guns is ridiculous because it's an unnecessary loss of freedom.
Canada. In Canada handguns are alot more restricted than in the states, you have to pay over 350 $ just to get a licence to buy them. And if they somehow have enough money to be that frivolous with their purchases, their probably above the intelligence to go murder someone.
I still think it's worth sacrificing the lives and safety of a few people to protect the lives and safety of the majority in the long-run. If gun ownership truly was a 'right' and every person truly needed a weapon then it would be massively unrestricted in almost every country - instead we see a lot of countries with varying levels of gun control that reflect the point that ownership of a firearm is a privilege and one that not all people need when it comes to living their day-to-day lives.
I still think it's worth sacrificing the lives and safety of a few people to protect the lives and safety of the majority in the long-run.Which is why we should not have restrictive gun control.
If gun ownership truly was a 'right' and every person truly needed a weapon then it would be massively unrestricted in almost every country - instead we see a lot of countries with varying levels of gun control that reflect the point that ownership of a firearm is a privilege and one that not all people need when it comes to living their day-to-day lives.Don't be so hard on yourself, man. That's not what you actually think. I mean, I can take a little self-deprecation, but come on. I worry about you, buddy.
What on Earth does something being a right have to do with whether countries give it to their citizens? Loads of countries might not let women vote, or allow freedom of religion, or free press. That doesn't make them special privileges. On no other issue would you say that the policies of the majority of countries define what civil rights should be reserved for the individual. I'm sure you'd argue that certain political and civil rights should be given to the population even if other nations don't follow suit.
Look, this whole rights/privileges distinction isn't getting you anywhere. Rights aren't some metaphysical set of moral facts that exist across time and space... you get that. Rights are what sovereign nations give their citizens. Sure, you can assert that certain rights should be given to everyone (I, for one, do) but either way, you recognize that they aren't forces separate from human interpretation. And moreover, you don't really think that what is and isn't a right is defined by how other countries view the issue. You think that actual ethical reasons should be behind the granting or suppressing of civil rights. I know moral relativism is hip, but you don't really believe in it, because you aren't a sociopath.
People tend to want to label things privileges because they don't want to say they're suppressing civil rights. That's rhetoric, not reason.
Yes but when the American people address gun-privileges as some sort of gods-given right, when it's merely a privilege, it's hard for me not to keep pointing out that it'll always be a privilege and nothing more. Plus I've been trying to argue the case for having no guns at all and with that mindset I kind of had to get into an anti-American worldview.
By the way, I find it interesting to note that there's been another school shooting in the last few days, surely the fact that these events keep occurring shows that at least an element of tighter gun control needs to be introduced as the problem isn't simply going to go away by itself.
Just in general, the only places exept you wher you can buy guns that easly, is africa and afganistan regions.
Just a few questions... Are Americans allowed to walk around openly with guns, or only allowed to keep them at home? And what about blank weapons, like swords?
Btw, Xzeno, if you need reasoning: independently of whether gun control is ok or not, I don't have a study to back this up but from what I observe, gun control and security seem to be loosely positively correlated. Wouldn't this be a reason to try some gun control? At least theoretically, practically you will never be able to pass that through in America..
You must be logged in to post a reply!