Forums → WEPR → What do you guys think about gun-control?

put for your perennial lack of understanding,

but*

Because, a gun is created explicitly, explicitly to cause harm in one form or another, that's the purpose it was created for. A car is created for one to drive from one place to another, not as a tool to harm, and most, if not almost all people use cars not for harming others.

Does it matter what it was designed to do if it can still be used for harm?

Does it matter what it was designed to do if it can still be used for harm?

Yes it does, and only a mentally challenged person won't see the difference. Is there a difference between an M16 and a car to you? Yes, assuming you're intelligent or sensible enough to understand, because one is, let me repeat, explicitly made to kill/harm,/hurt, and one is meant for transport. Yes, a car can cause harm, but the fact is, it isn't INTENDED to harm, nor are MOST people going to use it to harm others.

I do target shooting with my dad. He has an m1 carbine and a bolt action 22. rifle. I would hate it if they took them away. Target shooting is the most fun thing in the world to me.

Target shooting could be regularized, with clubs or so, leaving the right to shoot targets completely untouched and on the same time you don't need to have a full arsenal at home. I know you want to have a full arsenal at home, but that's just stupid. One weapon for defence is enough for the purpose.

I love guns. I love the 5th amendment.

"The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. "
I don't think that's what you meant.

Whatever the reason and what the object is originally designed to do, it can still be used to do harm. A car can be just as dangerous as a gun. See someone on the sidewalk? Run em' over!

1) Yes you can kill anyone with almost anything, but weapons make it easier, a lot easier, and affect your psyche much more than a chair would. That's why banning guns and banning chairs wouldn't be the same.
2) People can't just go drive a car, they have to earn their right to drive. Why not doing the same with guns?

Does it matter what it was designed to do if it can still be used for harm?

if it doesn't matter, what it is designed to, then tanks, bombs and other weapons designed to kill/harm, should also be legal?

Yes, a car can cause harm, but the fact is, it isn't INTENDED to harm, nor are MOST people going to use it to harm others.

I said it many times. It doesn't matter what it was intended to do, it still is dangerous. But I'm not saying that there should be car control. My point is that everything, when you think about it is dangerous in some way. So there isn't really a good reason to restrict one of them.

tanks, bombs and other weapons designed to kill/harm, should also be legal?

Those type of weapons can only be used to kill people, not like target shooting.

I said it many times. It doesn't matter what it was intended to do, it still is dangerous. But I'm not saying that there should be car control. My point is that everything, when you think about it is dangerous in some way. So there isn't really a good reason to restrict one of them.

Yes, but as I said, guns are made to make killing as easy as possible, which isn't the case for a chair; and it also has a bigger effect on your psyche.

And there is already car control. Why not gun control?

Those type of weapons can only be used to kill people, not like target shooting.

Of course they can be used for target shooting. In a bigger scale, simply.
But if you want, how about saying guns can only be used to destroy things? That's much more general and basically covers all uses.

when you think about it is dangerous in some way. So there isn't really a good reason to restrict one of them

the purpose of a gun is to shoot and kill. there is no other reason for the weapon,
about all the other stuff that is "dangerous" there are other usefull meanings for the item.

thats the difference between a gun and most (if not all) other "dangerous" items.

Those type of weapons can only be used to kill people, not like target shooting.

hell yea you can shoot targets whit a tank and bombs.
guns belong in this category aswell.

your reason is not a reason to have them illegal.

Target shooting could be regularized, with clubs or so, leaving the right to shoot targets completely untouched and on the same time you don't need to have a full arsenal at home. I know you want to have a full arsenal at home, but that's just stupid. One weapon for defence is enough for the purpose.

1. How is it stupid to have multiple firearms at home?
2. Is it any more dangerous when a person has multiple firearms at home?

Even if you think it is stupid for a person to have multiple firearms in their home, it's no more dangerous than them having a single firearm. There's no reason to restrict the number of firearms a person can own. When someone opens up their gun cabinet and you see a bunch of guns, you might **** yourself in fear at the huge number of weapons he has, but let's be real, he can only fire one at a time. It doesn't matter if someone has 20 guns or 1 gun, they're no more or no less dangerous. The only exception is if the person plans on taking multiple guns with him so that he can kill as many people as possible, which is incredibly rare. More importantly, people who are going to commit multiple murders with a variety of weapons are going to keep multiple weapons in their home despite what the law says, so the law will do nothing more than restrict the freedoms of non-dangerous, law abiding, citizens.

Banning guns may save lives, but there are other ways to reduce the number of crimes being committed with guns, or in general, such as abolishing the war on drugs.

My philosophy is simple, anything is okay as long as it's not being abused. If something is being abused, the abuser must be the one to lose his rights, not everyone else. I don't believe in sacrificing rights to protect people as long as other solutions are out there. When it comes to gun crimes, I am not convinced that regulation is the only solution. I won't even consider budging on my position until the drug was is ended, because I am confident that ending the drug war will greatly reduce crime in general, including gun crimes.

1. How is it stupid to have multiple firearms at home?
2. Is it any more dangerous when a person has multiple firearms at home?

It has all to do with a certain mindset that I consider dangerous, namely gun-nut fanatism, having your own personal arsenal as your pride, glorification of shooting as can be seen in certain comments on this thread, and so on. This isn't possible with only one weapon, which is why I consider one weapon less dangerous. Not because of the weapon, but because of the owner.

I don't say that we should ban all guns, I already said that and already proposed alternative ways.

It has all to do with a certain mindset that I consider dangerous, namely gun-nut fanatism, having your own personal arsenal as your pride, glorification of shooting as can be seen in certain comments on this thread, and so on. This isn't possible with only one weapon, which is why I consider one weapon less dangerous. Not because of the weapon, but because of the owner.

I don't say that we should ban all guns, I already said that and already proposed alternative ways.

Gun fanaticism? Describe what gun fanaticism is exactly. When I hear people talk about gun fanatics, I think they're talking about people who love collecting guns, talking about guns, and would do almost anything in their power to keep guns legal. These gun fanatics, oddly enough, aren't murderers. This thread is proof, because everyone in here talking about how much they love guns surely aren't murderers.

I would like to see evidence that people who collect guns are more likely to commit gun related crimes. I would love to see this evidence because most people who love guns are very responsible people. My father owns a number of guns which will someday be mine, is he a gun fanatic? No, he has acquired guns over the years and he keeps them as part of his own personal collection. He's no more likely to kill someone than someone who has only one gun. The ONLY reason a gun fanatic might be more likely to commit a gun related crime is because that person knows how to properly use a gun, but if that's the case, then the issue isn't so much whether he owns a gun or not, but the issue that he's ready to kill in the first place.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns don't make people want to kill, unfortunate situations make people want to kill. Guns don't create violence, violent people create violence.

Whenever you visit you people, look for giant safe. Chances are, the safe contains guns. Ask the owner of the house to show you their guns and let them educate you. You'll quickly learn that many people enjoy their collection of guns, and they aren't bat**** crazy.

I remember when the Tea Party was active. An insanely huge number of people who were against the Tea Party started to spew nonsense about how the Tea Party was filled with a bunch of gun crazed rednecks. These people are all dip****s, but they were close to the truth when they said 'gun crazed'. The Tea Party wasn't gun crazed, but they did support the right to bear arms.

The Tea Party was never dangerous. These "gun crazed" people never committed gun crimes during their rallies and I'm confident that almost all of them who owned guns never committed any gun related crimes.

Every time someone talks about gun fanatics, I just have to laugh at how these gun fanatics are nothing more than people who are passionate about guns, people who AREN'T a danger to anyone.

The people who are dangerous with guns are criminals. These aren't gun fanatics, these are often people who wanted to kill the man their wife cheated with, or criminals who are a part of gangs.

Lastly, how is someone who collects guns more likely to kill? What is his incentive? Are you suggesting that these people enjoy guns so much that they will kill for the sake of testing out their guns? Are you suggesting that these men have a shorter fuse and that they're more likely to react to situations in a violent way?

The reason people want to ban guns is because it's easier to use a gun to kill. All you need is a single gun to kill someone. Having more guns will not make someone more likely to kill. It will not make it any easier for them to kill. If someone who collects guns is easily angered and commits a gun crime, then chances are good that they would be just as easily angered and just as abled to commit the crime with a single gun.

Is it any more dangerous when a person has multiple firearms at home?

i does increase the chance of family members finding a weapon. also those angry teenagers and little kids that don't understand yet what it is.
ofcours not when you keep them all together. but i guess most people who have more guns for denfence only, hold them in different places so there is always 1 close by.

then you might have little gun controle by the government. but of the people themself can't keep controle over it then the little government work is kinda useless.

Banning guns may save lives, but there are other ways to reduce the number of crimes being committed with guns

why not do both and save even more lives?
and what other way's are you pointing at? i can't think of 1 instandly.

anything is okay as long as it's not being abused. If something is being abused, the abuser must be the one to lose his rights,

so 1st some1 needs to be shot, befor his "rights" (license) is taken away.
isn't it beter to try to not make that 1st hit at all?

I don't believe in sacrificing rights to protect people as long as other solutions are out there.

i'm starting to wonder now. why you call it a right?
if your calling for the right to protect yourself then there surely are other ways to protect yourself that does not kill. why should it still be a gun then?
if your calling for a other "right" i'd like to know...

I am not convinced that regulation is the only solution.

proof of it is switzerland. about every household there has a gun.
my guess however is that it depends on the culture and ethics in both countrys why the stats of both are so far away from eatch other.

because I am confident that ending the drug war will greatly reduce crime in general, including gun crimes.

aslong you keep the war on hard-drugs. if you legallise that, it will cost you massively in health care after a few year.
for the rest your right. but i fail to see how the war on drugs has anything to do whit gun-control.

then you might have little gun controle by the government. but of the people themself can't keep controle over it then the little government work is kinda useless.

As much as I hate saying it, it's up to the parents to be responsible with where they keep their guns. I believe most parents are responsible though.

why not do both and save even more lives?
and what other way's are you pointing at? i can't think of 1 instandly.

You don't do both because you're punishing innocent people. One of the biggest ways in which we can decrease gun crimes is to end the war on drugs.

so 1st some1 needs to be shot, befor his "rights" (license) is taken away.
isn't it beter to try to not make that 1st hit at all?

There is a man who intends to use a gun to kill a person he dislikes. You don't know if he wants to kill anyone, but just to be safe, you take his gun away. You just prevented a murder.

There is a man who intends to use a gun only for self defense/hunting/collecting. You don't know if he wants to kill anyone, but just to be safe, you take his gun away. You did not prevent a murder.

There is another man who intends to use a gun only for self defense/hunting/collecting. You don't know if he wants to kill anyone, but just to be safe, you take his gun away. You did not prevent a murder.

There is another man who intends to use a gun only for self defense/hunting/collecting. You don't know if he wants to kill anyone, but just to be safe, you take his gun away. You did not prevent a murder.

There is another man who intends to use a gun only for self defense/hunting/collecting. You don't know if he wants to kill anyone, but just to be safe, you take his gun away. You did not prevent a murder.

ect.

Sure, by banning guns you prevented one man from committing a crime, but you also restricted the rights of many men who weren't gong to commit crimes. You made it so that the innocent were being punished for the crimes of other people.

You can ban guns and prevent crimes from happening in the first place, but you're also banning guns so that people who wouldn't abuse them also feel the sting of the restriction. These innocent people may or may not "need" guns. To be honest, it's up to the individual to decide whether they need guns or not, not the government. If the government makes the decision, God help us.

i'm starting to wonder now. why you call it a right?
if your calling for the right to protect yourself then there surely are other ways to protect yourself that does not kill. why should it still be a gun then?
if your calling for a other "right" i'd like to know...

Sure, there are other means of defense that aren't as dangerous such as mace and tasers. These do not, however, replace guns. Even if the ban on guns reduces the number of criminals that use them, it's still irrational to expect someone who is physically weak to fend off an attacker, even with pepper spray or a taser.

A woman is better off with a gun than with mace or a taser. There's nothing better to keep a man from raping her than a gun. If she needs to kill someone who is breaking into her home to **** her or to steal her goods, then she has every right to do so in self defense. Most people don't WANT to kill, most people will only pull the trigger if they absolutely have to. If someone panics and pulls the trigger, then it's the god **** prick's fault for breaking into someone's home in the first place.

When someone is breaking into your home, morality isn't important. What is important is your safety. Mace and tasers are nice, but the sight of a gun will stop most criminals in their tracks, and if they refuse to stop, a bullet will stop them one way or another.

Nobody should have the power to decide what is best for the people, then enforce such rules on said person's property. If you don't like guns, you can tell everyone that guns aren't allowed on your property. If you own a restaurant, you can make the same rule. It's not the government's job to tell others that they can't use guns.

Most importantly, it is VERY dangerous when a government is allowed to use guns, but the people aren't.

proof of it is switzerland. about every household there has a gun.
my guess however is that it depends on the culture and ethics in both countrys why the stats of both are so far away from eatch other.

I didn't bring up Switzerland because I honestly don't know their gun policies. I can say, however, that Switzerland is an example that gun prohibition isn't the only way to reduce gun crimes.

aslong you keep the war on hard-drugs. if you legallise that, it will cost you massively in health care after a few year.

Yes, we will see more people in hospitals due to their abuse of drugs, as apposed to them laying in bed sick due to their fears of being arrested. Most people know that hard drugs are dangerous and most people will avoid them regardless as to whether they are legal or not.

for the rest your right. but i fail to see how the war on drugs has anything to do whit gun-control.

I don't know the numbers, but I'm willing to guess that a large number of gun crimes are committed by gangs and drug cartels. The best way to cripple these groups is to legalize drugs, which is the cause of their violence. They use guns to protect the black market. The black market will cease to exist, or be nearly non existent, if drugs are legalized. This will greatly reduce the number of gun related crimes.

If gun related crimes are highest in ghettos or in areas with high gang activity, then why don't we merely prohibit guns in those areas? Instead of banning guns at a national level, why not ban them at smaller levels? The reason? People who commit gun crimes regularly will obtain guns one way or another, regardless of the law.

I would love it if more women carried guns. I doubt gun crimes will go up and I'm confident **** will go down.