AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Are Guns Bad?

245 38688
RickersXS
offline
RickersXS
80 posts
Nomad

When Rhys Jones got shot everyone got in a rage about how guns are bad but guns are inanimate objects so that cant be bad because their not alive

  • 245 Replies
Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

Wars actually probably wouldn't go on without guns, that is good.


....whaaaaaaat?????? do you think there were no wars before guns were invented?

I do think guns should be heavily regulated, but not banned.


what about knives, rope, and fast food too :P? but yeah, i do agree with that if the regulation isn't too strict.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

After all you said, why do you say this. What is the reason for "heavy regulation"? What "heavy regulation" do you think is necessary?


I'd say that if a person has a history of violent crime or mental illness, said person shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. It would take a few weeks to complete a background check, but it would keep murdering people like Cho Seung-Hui unable to legally buy a gun. Because the gun he bought to kill 33 people at Virginia Tech was legally bought. . . .

Anyway, it would lower shooting and crime rates. It worked in Canada.

what about knives, rope, and fast food too :P? but yeah, i do agree with that if the regulation isn't too strict.


Lol, not too strict. :P

However, I do think people with violent or potentially violent mental illness shouldn't be allowed to buy certain knives (the ones that are specifically weapons).
valkyrie1119
offline
valkyrie1119
1,720 posts
Nomad

Think about an alien invasion. We would need guns and weapons to kill the invaders. Guns can do good, admit it.

Somers
offline
Somers
1,532 posts
Nomad

However, I do think people with violent or potentially violent mental illness shouldn't be allowed to buy certain knives (the ones that are specifically weapons).


All knives should be sold to anyone. Some knives, example, like for camping, or skinning.

Besides, eveyrone runs faster with a knife =)
Bronze
offline
Bronze
2,417 posts
Shepherd

Think about an alien invasion.


That is why we should have guns? lol

Also, what are the regulations on catapults? I think anybody could build them, then start slinging boulders through peoples houses.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

Because the gun he bought to kill 33 people at Virginia Tech was legally bought. . . .
But not legally brought into the school. Because having guns in schools is illegal. That's why people shoot up schools. Had one of the teachers been armed, the whole thing could have been stopped.

it would take a few weeks to complete a background check
That seems excessive.

I'd say that if a person has a history of violent crime or mental illness, said person shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.
That hardly seems like heavy regulation.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

All knives should be sold to anyone


and all prisons and mental institutions should release their prisoners/patients right?
TexanProvo
offline
TexanProvo
408 posts
Nomad

Take away guns and criminals will replace them within the week. In countries where guns are not so common, stabbings are common. Just about ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, knives, baseball bats, axes, 2x4, chain, belt, boot, rope, even a car (one ton vehicle moving at 60 miles per hour is many times more dangerous then a bullet). If we ban what they use after guns, they'll just find something else, it isn't hard to make a club or bow and arrow in even a few hours, all of which can be lethal. I myself own several firearms including a shotgun, bolt action rifle, and a semi-automatic AR-15 and have never killed anyone. Availablility of weapons is not the problem, it is the individual themselves and just taking away a gun will NOT stop them. What's next, do you want to ban knives, kitchen cleaners (very easy to make chemical weapons with them, easier then you think actually, be careful what you mix), and anything else? Firearms serve a purpose of sporting, hunting, and yes, self defense, and as long as they are in the hands of responsible people they shall cause no problems.

MusicianAzn
offline
MusicianAzn
32 posts
Nomad

lol this reminded me of an american dad episode something to do with the NGA anyway I find guns arn't bad they are just a tool that can be used for bad things just like King arthurs sword excalibur lets say king arthur was evil and used it to slaughter thousands the sword we know as a holy sword would probably go down as a demon sword the user is what makes the tool good or evil

Annihalation
offline
Annihalation
479 posts
Nomad

Guns dont kill people.... people (and some chimpanzees) do...

Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

But not legally brought into the school. Because having guns in schools is illegal. That's why people shoot up schools. Had one of the teachers been armed, the whole thing could have been stopped.


Had he not had a gun the whole thing could've been stopped. How can you not understand this? Why should both parties have a gun when neither needs it?

what about knives, rope, and fast food too :P? but yeah, i do agree with that if the regulation isn't too strict.


Knives and rope both have practical uses other than to kill. Don't get me started on fast food =P

Going out for dinner requires less work than cooking a steak in an oven. . . .
Fail, lol.


Not a fail Going out to dinner requires much MORE work than cooking a steak in a NU WAVE oven, you know, those ones with the infomercials =P You've got to drive their, order, wait, eat, tip, drive home.

They're not 'for' any one thing. They're for hunting, collecting, putting on display, assembling, disassembling, educational purposes, shooting on shooting rnages, *and* killing people.


It seems to me collecting, displaying, and assembling and dissasembling are all quite similair...and are you telling me people would display, dissasemble, and assemble guns if they weren't used to kill? It is the glorification of killing.

Shelby County, Tennessee and King County, Washington say that 50% of all victims were killed by guns.

Point is, guns shouldn't be outlawed because they rarely kill people.


"Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," a study done in 1998, concluded that 45% of murders were committed in homes with guns in them.

Suicide is the leading cause of death within one year after purchasing a gun.

A gun in the home is much more likely to be used in the death of a resident rather than in self defense.

Siege, by the Chinese in the mid 1100s.
They were invented as a siege weapon, not an anti-personnel weapon - and they weren't used against people until the 13-1400s when aristocrats would duel.


My statement "what were they invented for?" was just for shock value. We are talking about guns, the ones we know today, not the Chinese in the 1100's.

Take away guns and criminals will replace them within the week


All I know, is it takes longer to stab someone to death, then to shoot them. It's not stopping killing alltogether, its making it more difficult and therefore less likely to happen.

What's next, do you want to ban knives, kitchen cleaners (very easy to make chemical weapons with them, easier then you think actually, be careful what you mix


Neither of those things are used to kill as often as guns.
deserteagle
offline
deserteagle
1,633 posts
Nomad

I would just ban the use of automatics to civilians. Maybe Handguns too.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

Not a fail Going out to dinner requires much MORE work than cooking a steak in a NU WAVE oven, you know, those ones with the infomercials =P You've got to drive their, order, wait, eat, tip, drive home.


Right, but you have to get up off your butt, pick up the phone, call the number, set up the oven, drive out to buy the steak, pay for the steak, take the steak home, and then make sure you get the settings right on the oven so your steak doesn't suck. >.>

I can't believe we're debating this, lol.

It seems to me collecting, displaying, and assembling and dissasembling are all quite similair...and are you telling me people would display, dissasemble, and assemble guns if they weren't used to kill? It is the glorification of killing.


urm, they're different. . . .

Assembling and disassembling go hand-in-hand, but the rest are different. . . .

It is not the glorification of killing, it is the glorification of guns. And guns are not equal to killing.

"Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," a study done in 1998, concluded that 45% of murders were committed in homes with guns in them.


Guns in them =/= used a gun.

Also, guns don't encourage killing! Guns are just guns. Objects can't encourage you to do something. They don't have little mouths and little brains to store little words to whisper little messages in your ear. They. Just. Don't.

Shelby County, Tennessee and King County, Washington say that 50% of all victims were killed by guns.


That falls severely short of proving the statement we're currently debating, 'guns are used solely for killing.'

There is no factual evidence that guns have no use other than killing.

ALSO, that's only TWO PLACES. Guns exist across the whole WORLD, dude.

Unless you can buy a genie lamp and magically change fact, you simply can't provide a shred of support for your point. You're the one with the burden of proof right now, so carry that weeeeiiiiiighttttt. . . .

*hums Beatles tune*

Neither of those things are used to kill as often as guns.


but they're as, or even more, dangerous than guns.

Suicide is the leading cause of death within one year after purchasing a gun.


Probably because a lot of people who are hell-bent (hur hur hur) on committing suicide would use a gun, because they're the most commercialized weapons currently available.

That hardly seems like heavy regulation.


I may have been exaggerating a bit, lol.

But not legally brought into the school. Because having guns in schools is illegal. That's why people shoot up schools. Had one of the teachers been armed, the whole thing could have been stopped.


The whole also could've been stopped if the nutter wasn't allowed to have a gun in the first place, which is *much* lower risk then allowing everyone to tote guns everywhere. It's simply not sensible.
quakingphear
offline
quakingphear
410 posts
Peasant

I'd say that if a person has a history of violent crime or mental illness, said person shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. It would take a few weeks to complete a background check, but it would keep murdering people like Cho Seung-Hui unable to legally buy a gun.

I won't speak for the entirety of the United States, but they already do that. There is a background check. The main no-no's that prevent you from getting a LEGAL firearm that are found in a 24-48 hour background check are: Domestic Abuse(No killing your spouse if you're a card-carrying wife-beater or vice versa), Mental Illness(That fella at Virginia Tech was a fluke or bought the gun from a shady dealer), a felony(which means they'll just go to a pawn-shop).
I won't bother naming sources, but I have done research with people who have legally bought firearms, and I have looked up state laws.

Short of outright banning of firearms The US has the strictest regulations on buying firearms.

In fact there are several first world countries that have quite a few guns in comparison and actually have lower violent crime rate. In France you can buy a silencer to a .22 calibre rifle over the counter. .22's are used for pest control and a silencer is considered considerate to your neighbors. And don't think such a small bullet isn't a threat. A headshot will still kill you.
In Sweden there is a standing militia and just about every man is obligated to have a fully automatic rifle and about 300 (dont quote me) rounds of ammunition in their home. Violent crime is pretty low there in comparison to the US and even Britain. (According to CIA statistics from their website from the year 2003) Am I saying if everybody has a gun, no one will kill each other? No. That wouldn't last a minute in the US.

Instead of looking at gun violence we need to look deeper into the society that creates a neccesity to use them in a violent manner in the first place. Let's look at gangs. Most buy guns in a deadly escalation in arms because they have a need to defend themselves and aquire more territory. But why have gangs? Most are comprised of young men without fathers or a stable family. The family may be this way for any number of reasons. There may be no father. It could be a life of destitution creating a dysfunctional family or a dangerous or abusive upbringing. This makes a generation of men with no family, so they look to others to be a surrogate family. Thus, gangs. If there was some way to eliminate or remedy this deep societal malaise and eliminate gangs then violence regardless of the weapon used will decrease.
Next, illegal smuggling. The drug trade is still a major problem in the US. Drugs and illegal weapons go hand-in-hand. The same borders used to smuggle marijuana, cocaine, and meth are used often by the same smugglers to bring in weapons. If the drug importation was stopped, most street gangs would likely die. They lose their source of revenue, and the primary means to protect said revenue.

This doesn't even scratch the surface of the problems that makes the US more violent. The question isn't whether to get rid of guns but to minimize the need for illegal ones by focusing more on where they get illegal ones.
GamesArmor
offline
GamesArmor
890 posts
Nomad

If no one have guns, from what do you need to be protected?


They will have guns regardless if it was illegal, they would get it from the black market.
Showing 31-45 of 245