• 64 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by P0rtal (872 posts) - - Show Bio

So, I just took some pain killers for the first time in 9 years. I've not been able to walk for about 10 years due to a medical thing and this is the first time Ive ever taken anything for the pain ( which has always been severe ) outside of the 2+ weeks after surgeries needed even 10 years later after a losing the ability to walk.Thought I would rant a little about gun rights because I've lost friends, seen terrible losses and just do not understand any of the mentality towards pro gun rights.

The second amendment says nothing about the rights to lethal arms and it was written by men who would have never expected people to be able to hide machine guns in their jackets and go shoot people, kids in schools or whatever terrible event like that, we are advanced enough as a society to impose non lethal firearms regulations to all firearm manufacturers. As a nation, we've abused guns and they are responsible for the deaths of millions of people over the past few hundred years. If we dont put a stop to this, its only going to get worse, technology is going to get even more easy to issue out to people and those with access to machine guns and high tech arms is only going to get even more problematic. As much as you want to whine, you do not have the right to get drunk and fire your pistol accidentally and have the bullet fly out of your window and into mine next door, you shouldnt have the right to take your gun outside to a movie theater and fire on a poor man sitting in front of you who is a jerk and refuses to shut his phone off, and then tosses popcorn at you. You should not have the right to murder him because you felt threatened by a man tossing popcorn at you.

All bullets should cost $100 a piece, all guns and ammo should be made of a unique one of a kind metal that is able to be detected from a long distance away. People would be rewarded for turning in their guns for these new types with tax breaks, clean swap, lethal guns for non lethal gun of the same type. Trade your shotgun in for a non lethal shotgun ect ect. The only reason to support the 2nd amendment is to make an excuse for your desire to shoot someone and I've not ever heard anyone give me a good reason for owning a gun. There isn't anything you can do to stop someone from walking up to your window while you are sitting on your couch and firing through it, nothing to stop a murder from kicking your door in suddenly and without warning and spraying you while you are sitting at your dinner table, this isn't video games, its not the wild west and guns do not save people in bank robberies or "criminal events" enough to even become a statistic that you can toss a percentage out at "how many crimes were stopped because someone had a gun to stop the bad guy". Shooting the robber is not the right solution, two wrongs dont make a right and despite the person trying to harm you, if you kill them you are equally as bad of a person if you justify it and boast that "you own a gun, if that guy comes here imma shoot him". There will never be a zombie apocalypse, doomsday prepping is a terrible idea because all your friends know you are prepared most likely and having tons of food near and lots of guns stashed away with 10,000 rounds isn't going to stop the radiation from killing you in a few weeks or months. Seriously. Sorry for the drug induced rant haha. I am so tired of this nonsense. I hear the excuse "well the government wants to take our guns away so i need to have a lot of guns here to defend myself from them if this happens"

seriously, if the government wants to take your guns away, they will and they will do so silently while you are sleeping, they will make a list of everyone who bought a machine gun or high calibur dangerous weapons and silently take you out if they ever wanted to do that or needed to do that, they will snipe you through your windows from a mile away or send 500 swat members to your house. So, I see no reason to owning a lethal gun if tazers are so cheaply made, so effective and easily concealed. They make grown men pee themselves and killing someone outright isnt the right way.

I realize that robbery is a terrible thing and scary when the person walks in with a gun and waves it at you, as a victim of that I understand it, but I also understand that a lot of them are kids, young people or desperate people, another percent wants to harm you, a large percent doesnt and went there without the intent to harm anyone. I see that is hard to accept for most, but its true. The young kid in a mask waving a gun at the gas station clerk doesnt deserve to be shot to death if non lethal methods exist now that can make sure he gets arrested instead and spends a few days in the hospital if need be.

Shooting someone doesn't make you any better even if they were trying to hurt you. Sorry again for this rant, this issue bothers me. I dont even think police should have lethal arms, only soldiers and special tactical units. I wish this mentality of needing to kill the bad guy would be removed from the world. Its not the right way. We need to be better than this, do better and be better than the person who is trying to hurt us. Two wrongs never make a right.

#2 Posted by Blade_R (2707 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah I don't think the founding fathers had any idea what type of guns that would be available to everybody right now so I think maybe everybody could come to some sort of compromise as to what guns should be allowed to everyday people and which aren't but im not gonna get into that, my main reason to come here was say please be careful with the painkillers, you don't want to get addicted, been there and done that and its not fun my friend, but I do understand that you need them for the pain, as a recovered addict I just felt obligated to come say this, I know its not my place as im sure you are aware of what medication you are taking but I felt the need to say this, so I apologize if anybody takes this the wrong way.

#3 Posted by Orician_Seis (491 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree with this. I think hunters can use them. Rifles are different from pistols imo. A pistol only has one purpose, to use against another human. I think hunters should be able to lease a rifle for hunting but have to turn it in when they finish. Other than that, they should be banned. A gun is not going to protect you against someone with a gun pointed at you. Yes you can argue that criminals will acquire them legal or not, but going and getting one yourself is not a solution. Get a tazer. "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a retarded argument. Yes people kill people, but why supply them with all the means they need to do so.

#4 Posted by kcjr (342 posts) - - Show Bio

@p0rtal: I could not disagree with you more. Someone breaks in to my house with a weapon, and you want me to take a chance they don't actually intend violence? No. I will end their life without a second thought. Yes, I am better than them. I was sitting in my home with my wife and son when he/she decides to take action. Yes, brandishing a weapon (gun, knife, whatever) is an act of violence to me. I would NEVER wager my family's safety.

#5 Edited by P0rtal (872 posts) - - Show Bio

Specifically chosing to use your lethal weapon instead of opting for a non lethal weapon that is EQUALLY AS EFFECTIVE....this is how most people think and it really bugs me. Its lead to the deaths of thousands of people just this year alone. It needs to stop.

#6 Edited by Djangophile (275 posts) - - Show Bio

No, you are not better. In fact, you are worse. You chose to murder instead of disable.

@kcjr said:

@p0rtal: I could not disagree with you more. Someone breaks in to my house with a weapon, and you want me to take a chance they don't actually intend violence? No. I will end their life without a second thought. Yes, I am better than them. I was sitting in my home with my wife and son when he/she decides to take action. Yes, brandishing a weapon (gun, knife, whatever) is an act of violence to me. I would NEVER wager my family's safety.

#7 Posted by kcjr (342 posts) - - Show Bio

@djangophile: You are wrong. Plain and simple. I am someone that would never assault anyone that wasn't a threat to my family. You think a man that defends his family from an criminal that breaks into his house and threatens his family is worse than the people actually committing crimes? That's ridiculous. Yes, I would rather have a gun than a tazer any day. I'm not willing to take a chance with my family. Life is not an action movie where an average person can pick their shots like Hawkeye. I honestly don't know much about tazers but I don't think you can fire off three quick shots with them like you can a gun. It's much better to have a gun.

#8 Posted by Yokergeist (12355 posts) - - Show Bio

Gun laws are stupid because criminals don't follow laws.

-$NG

#9 Posted by Yokergeist (12355 posts) - - Show Bio

@orician_seis:

So "Guns don't kill you" is retarted, huh? Oooh look, this gun is floating in midair. It just shot me!

People kill other people.

#10 Posted by Wolverine08 (44067 posts) - - Show Bio

Aye, the puerile slogan that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." is back, eh. When are conservatives going to figure out how stupid and simplistic that sounds out loud?

Online
#11 Posted by Orician_Seis (491 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes obviously people kill people. But the means to have a gun is so easily supplied. If someone breaks into your house and was aiming to kill everyone but you kill them first, its still murder. Taking the life of another can NEVER be justified. This goes for street thugs to soldiers. Just because you had no other choice does not make it okay. Its not fair, its not supposed to be. Murder is murder it doesn't matter what end of the gun you're on. But honestly, how many people break into houses with the intent to kill? The vast amount of home break-ins happen when no one is home. If someone is trying to break in just to kill you, great they're a psychopath. That's an even smaller percentage.

#12 Posted by _Cain_ (23670 posts) - - Show Bio

Also on a note, if we ban the second amendment we are F*cked. The Second Amendment originally did yes cover Muskets and Long Rifles that weren't your standard goddamn AK-47 and M16, but what it did cover also was CANNONS. Cannons even then were not hunting or self defense weapons back then. The reason why it's covered? Because it was written like many of the amendments in the bill of rights as a way of the citizens to protect and overthrow the government in the case of an invasion.

I'd say it'd be more beneficial to legalize all guns, and then conscript everyone with a non criminal record at the age of 18 to a firearms safety and usage class, and eventually move onto other techniques like concealed carry if they choose to do so. Then, everyone should be GIVEN a goddamn gun before they leave the building that they can do whatever the f*ck they feel like it with it. They can keep it, sell it, throw it away, give it, whatever, as long as they had their chance. This would be an effective means of keeping those goddamn rich dickheads and Washington thinking twice EVERY time they want to infringe on our rights, and I guarantee you that combined with decriminalization or total legalization of drugs, the crime rate would be non-freaking existent

#13 Posted by Yokergeist (12355 posts) - - Show Bio

@orician_seis:

If someone threatened my family, I'd blow his f*cking brains out.

#14 Posted by _Cain_ (23670 posts) - - Show Bio

@orician_seis: Murder isn't always wrong, as long as it's a citizen and not something stupid like the death penalty, it's not wrong it's purely protecting yourself.

If someone EVER Enters my property without my permission and is threatening me, It's my damn right to blow his head off. I'm going to live to tell the story about it to, and they won't.

#15 Posted by kcjr (342 posts) - - Show Bio

@orician_seis: I respect how deeply you value life, however I disagree that killing someone is always wrong. Sure home invasion killings are rare, but that was just an example. Being assaulted walking down the street is not rare. I fully believe if you are attacked you are right to protect yourself. Whether that means with a gun or knive, or bouncing their head off the pavement, you do what you must. People get attacked randomly all the time, I don't see what's wrong with being prepared for it.

#16 Posted by RisingBean (4372 posts) - - Show Bio

@p0rtal: Some of this seems magical. Guns made of select magic metals? Most of it is nonsensical. I'm sorry if gun violence is the cause of your situation but thinking that removing firearms is the answer is the wrong one. You can't turn back the clock and uninvent them. And even if all the "good" people gave them up, the bad wouldn't.

Yes obviously people kill people. But the means to have a gun is so easily supplied. If someone breaks into your house and was aiming to kill everyone but you kill them first, its still murder. Taking the life of another can NEVER be justified. This goes for street thugs to soldiers. Just because you had no other choice does not make it okay. Its not fair, its not supposed to be. Murder is murder it doesn't matter what end of the gun you're on. But honestly, how many people break into houses with the intent to kill? The vast amount of home break-ins happen when no one is home. If someone is trying to break in just to kill you, great they're a psychopath. That's an even smaller percentage.

I want to say that as a former infantry soldier, this comment colors you as sounding like a D-bag.

"One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street ... these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time." -Jeff Cooper.

And two from Clint Smith.

"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

"When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away."

#17 Posted by SOG7dc (7569 posts) - - Show Bio

I was 5 years old. Washington park Illinois (look it up) me and my mother were in a churches chicken. Guy runs in with a gun and starts yelling and pointing the gun at everyone. My mother, while the guy is facing her, is pleading for my life. Cops come around the corner and the guy runs out. The VERY last thing I wish would have happened is for some gun toting Clint Eastwood wannabe to pull out his gun and call himself a "good guy". I'm obviously biased. Me and my mother used to have to get up in the middle of te night and lie on te floor as bullets flew in our windows) but I'm totally against, not only guns, but any weapon if any kind......unless it's a GL ring or Mjolnir.

#18 Edited by Guardiandevil83 (5808 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc: Mjolnir has killed plenty.

#19 Edited by Avenger85 (1973 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by Avenger85 (1973 posts) - - Show Bio

@kcjr said:

@p0rtal: I could not disagree with you more. Someone breaks in to my house with a weapon, and you want me to take a chance they don't actually intend violence? No. I will end their life without a second thought. Yes, I am better than them. I was sitting in my home with my wife and son when he/she decides to take action. Yes, brandishing a weapon (gun, knife, whatever) is an act of violence to me. I would NEVER wager my family's safety.

I completely agree.

#21 Posted by Orician_Seis (491 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kcjr

lol I value all life to a fault sometimes. I believe if you feel the need to own a gun for protection, become a cop. Lord knows more are needed. The illegal gun problem needs to be solved first I think. Once that statistic has been drastically reduced, then remove the legal ones. A gun is not the answer, if you get mugged in a city just give them what they want. What do you stand to loose? Muggers and robbers are all cowards at heart. Give them what they want and they will retreat back into their hole. Its not all kill or be killed.

@Risingbean

As for the dbag and infantry remark, I pity you for it. While I will not start some military debate over morals. I will say they are the best example of the scenario. So what if they were going to kill you first? Just because you won the draw doesn't make it right. In the case of military I would argue that following the orders of a government that cares nothing for you, to an end that is not in the best interest of the people you are "protecting". Is not too far off the mark of a serial killer. But that is off topic. Anywho, no, a law cannot simply wish away guns. But I do not believe it is some unsolvable puzzle. So in your opinion, the only way to meet gun wielding thugs is with gun wielding citizens? That's an equation that nobody wins.

#22 Posted by iaconpoint (1363 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: So is the puerile attitude that if we try to get rid of guns everyone will simply put theirs down and play nice and ride unicorns on rainbows as gumdrops fall from the sky. Geez Louise man.

#23 Posted by RisingBean (4372 posts) - - Show Bio

@orician_seis: I don't need or want your pity. Let's play a game. Let's assume that people get along always, never have any issues over sexual orientation, religion, race, wealth or any other dividing factors. That is a life where there is no violence and no need for the tools to protect oneself.

However we live in a real world where the strong can and will prey on the weak. Moral alignment aside, there are many people who will kill or injure you or your loved ones because they dislike homosexuality, your belief system concerning God, the color of your skin, the pocket change you are carrying or just for the fact that they can.

A man who isn't willing to defend himself and his family can only rely on the civility of man. Civility isn't the natural state of man. Once the system starts to crack, if you can't protect yourself or your family, you will lose them. In the worst case scenario you feel like I am a murderer because I won't sit by while thugs rape my wife, or murder my children? You call me a serial killer because I plan to protect myself and those I love?

Wow, dude. Just wow. I hope if you have a girlfriend or wife she realizes her life is forfeit should anything bad happen and it's up to you to do something. I hope she's smart enough with that knowledge to leave you and find somebody who loves her enough to protect her and who won't roll over.

As per the idea of meeting the bad guys with force? Yup. Sometimes words fall short. And the fact is showing up to a gunfight unarmed is pretty damned dumb.

#24 Posted by Orician_Seis (491 posts) - - Show Bio

A lot of assumptions there. Maybe I have more faith in humanity than it deserves. Who knows. As for me, I would do whatever I had to do to keep my family safe. I would take a life if need be. Point was that I would not feel good about it. Regardless of the situation. You seem to be speaking from the perspective of war. War is not the natural state of man. It is a perversion. Violence met with violence solves what? A temporary solution for a much larger problem. On the individual basis, I know the line between heroics and stupidity. A home invasion will warrant the use of any force. A mugging, not so much. Two very different things are at stake. Furthermore, we do not so much live in a world where the strong prey on those weaker. It is more opposite or twisted. The weak now up their numbers to prey on the singular weak or those above them. Robbers, muggers, rapist, murders. They are not the "strong". They are the exact opposite. To attempt to find a way back in topic, why make it easier to supply them with what they need to secure their fantasy? If you think absolute gun abolishment is a no go. Why not simply take them out of stores? Make the task of getting them much harder. Raise the cost. As a side note this whole issue is in a certain sense, regional. Gun crime in Manhattan is not the same as Denver. Or Atlanta. So maybe state laws would be better suited to fix this problem.

#25 Posted by marvel_boy2241 (2468 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope it's our right. We shouldn't take away others rights for the actions of the few. We gotta be fair.

#26 Edited by Djangophile (275 posts) - - Show Bio

Sorry, but I think you are crazy and just want to shoot others if you choose a lethal weapon over a non lethal weapon that has the same effectiveness in the form of a gun. The funeral and medical costs of everyone accidentally or injustly murdered by firearms would fuel and fund RnD for non lethal but equally effective means of defense. What bugs me here is the mindset of others " I will kill a guy if it meant saving my family ". When the topic is about " investing effort into non lethal but equally effective means of saving your family."

The mindset for many people, the majority actually instantly revert to murdering the other person. Its instant murder. Guy threatened you or your own? Kill him and don't look back, instead of " I'd rather own a non lethal weapon that could get the job done, so he can go to jail."

Nope, screw that. Screw the advanced and humane technology possibility. Just give everyone hand held nuclear bullets. 100 year from now, who knows if someone will allow a hand gun that has a non radioactive fallout and 5ft radius nuclear blast bullet that vaporizes someone completely in a small mushroom cloud explosion. That is the mentality going on here. They would rather choose that route than the safe for all. " OH well the bad guys have effective weapons so that means I need them too!"

Well sorry, but you are mistaken. You are crazy and you don't need an equally lethal weapon to stop someone if someone invents or pushes for non lethal BUT EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AS LETHAL WEAPON. Sick. Rights? You think the founding fathers wanted anyone to be able to carry machine guns with 100 clip magazines that you can hide in your coat? Do you really think they wanted anyone to claim self defense for a guy tossing POPCORN at you, but you decided you were so afraid of said popcorn that you needed to shoot the man dead...even after taking the gun into a MOVIE THEATER!?

This is what I do not understand personally and it upsets me GREATLYYYYY because not one person who supports gun rights seems to have the mental abilities to think straight, think about the future, has any moral values and seems to come from a gun loving family, friends circle and social convension mindset where guns are good, go buy some and take them out cuz you need them.

Its BS. Crazy people support guns, crazy people prefer to murder instead of incapacitate. There are people here who would rather shoot a man to death with a gun, instead of use a gun with non lethal bullets that will end the crime instantly just as fast as the lethal gun does, but without harming them. CRAZY. Nothing more needs to be said.

#27 Posted by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: It's like the chicken and the egg.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...with guns.

#28 Posted by IrishX (2423 posts) - - Show Bio
@jaken7 said:

@wolverine08: It's like the chicken and the egg.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...with guns, bombs, knives, rope, and even their bare hands.

Fixed that for you.

#29 Posted by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@irishx: Because we all know commercially accesible guns don't make it easier for people to kill people. /sarcasm

#30 Posted by IrishX (2423 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7: Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

  • Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
  • Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
  • Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
  • In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
  • In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
  • There has been a reported “dramatic increase” in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
#31 Edited by TazzMission (5488 posts) - - Show Bio

i hate guns and refuse to own any myself but nowadays people are just nuts and sadly nobody is a mind reader to detect who is or isnt mentally stable. now because of what i just said does NOT mean i dont think there are some responsible gun owners. heck i can argue and say theres many people in the world who shouldnt be able to drive since road rage is another big issue in this country and the truth is just because some nuts go crazy on the road should we ban driving next?

#32 Edited by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@irishx: Are you going to give actual numbers, or just cite a bunch of percentages? They're very deceptive. 2 is still a 100% increase over 1.

#33 Posted by IrishX (2423 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7: Nothing I post would make a difference to how you believe. You clearly live in a world of denial and would rather blame an object than the person who committed the crime. They banned guns and violent crime went up.... is it really that unclear?

#34 Posted by TazzMission (5488 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7 said:

@irishx: Because we all know commercially accesible guns don't make it easier for people to kill people. /sarcasm

i hate guns but irish does make a point dude. if someone stabs someone do you blame the person who does it or do you blame the knife because its more accesible?

heres the truth about guns. wether they are banned or not someone will always be able to obtain one and imo the only way to really stop guns period is to shut down the manufactures who make them wich will never happen because it would affect police and military also

#35 Posted by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@irishx: Then why bother posting at all? You're just deflecting now. Probably ashamed of the fact that those numbers you tried to use as evidence are actually really low.

#36 Posted by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@tazzmission: I've only known people who have survived their pre-meditated knife wounds. I've also only known people who have died from their accidental (not even pre-meditated) gunshot wounds.

Knives are practically as old as man. Guns are a relatively new tool of war. Y'know the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight," that's because one is much more powerful and dangerous than the other. It's that simple. If you were going to go through everything that could kill someone, you might as well compare a piece of choked-on food. Should food be banned? No. Does it kill people? Yes. Is it as powerful or dangerous as a gun? No.

#37 Edited by TazzMission (5488 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7 said:

@tazzmission: I've only known people who have survived their pre-meditated knife wounds. I've also only known people who have died from their accidental (not even pre-meditated) gunshot wounds.

Knives are practically as old as man. Guns are a relatively new tool of war. Y'know the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight," that's because one is much more powerful and dangerous than the other. It's that simple. If you were going to go through everything that could kill someone, you might as well compare a piece of choked-on food. Should food be banned? No. Does it kill people? Yes. Is it as powerful or dangerous as a gun? No.

i can tell you as a former kenpo student we trained with spears katanas ect and let me tell you they are just as lethal as any gun look at ninjas from ancient japan they were feared . look at the military do you think they just train with firearms? you do realize they train with melee weapons such as army knives right?

if you think none of that isnt lethal you have zero freaking clue on the subject

#38 Posted by SpitfirePanda (896 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's a scenario:

A psycho walks into a restaraunt with a gun and his goal is to kill as may people as he possibly can. He can't be talked down, and he isn't going to just leave. What is the best case scenario for the innocent people in the restaraunt?

The best case scenario for these people is that an armed police officer is there to protect them. What makes this armed police officer so important in this situation? Three things, in order:

1) He has good intentions. Barring corrupt cops, the majority of police want to fulfill their oath to serve and protect. They want to help society and take care of people. That's why they take the job.

2) He has a gun. Without a gun he's just another target. He could charge the psycho and try to tackle him, but he's gonna get shot. If he gets lucky he might even stop the guy, but he's still gonna get shot. With a gun of his own, his chances of stopping the guy with minimal casualties goes up significantly.

3) He's an officer of the law. This is third because most people could fulfill 1 and 2 without being a cop.

A person with bad intentions should never have a gun, but the truth of the matter is they get guns all the time. Our situation is different than Europe's. We have South America, they don't. South American countries have a long history of crime and corruption. Some of those problems are our fault. Some of them are a result of the precedence set by the way in which South America drove the Spanish out of their lands. If we ban all guns in the U.S. they will simply be brought up from the border by the drug cartels. They already move weapons across the border, they're not going to stop just because we say its more illegal now than it was a year ago (its illegal now, even without the gun ban). Banning guns will only empower the criminals.

#39 Posted by TazzMission (5488 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's a scenario:

A psycho walks into a restaraunt with a gun and his goal is to kill as may people as he possibly can. He can't be talked down, and he isn't going to just leave. What is the best case scenario for the innocent people in the restaraunt?

The best case scenario for these people is that an armed police officer is there to protect them. What makes this armed police officer so important in this situation? Three things, in order:

1) He has good intentions. Barring corrupt cops, the majority of police want to fulfill their oath to serve and protect. They want to help society and take care of people. That's why they take the job.

2) He has a gun. Without a gun he's just another target. He could charge the psycho and try to tackle him, but he's gonna get shot. If he gets lucky he might even stop the guy, but he's still gonna get shot. With a gun of his own, his chances of stopping the guy with minimal casualties goes up significantly.

3) He's an officer of the law. This is third because most people could fulfill 1 and 2 without being a cop.

A person with bad intentions should never have a gun, but the truth of the matter is they get guns all the time. Our situation is different than Europe's. We have South America, they don't. South American countries have a long history of crime and corruption. Some of those problems are our fault. Some of them are a result of the precedence set by the way in which South America drove the Spanish out of their lands. If we ban all guns in the U.S. they will simply be brought up from the border by the drug cartels. They already move weapons across the border, they're not going to stop just because we say its more illegal now than it was a year ago (its illegal now, even without the gun ban). Banning guns will only empower the criminals.

thank you! either way ban or not guns will always be around

#40 Posted by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@tazzmission: Yeah, for when they're in too close of quarters to use their guns or if they can't rely on their guns. That's what the training is for, as backup.

And be honest, why would we have been using spears since countless millenia BC, yet we're using guns in modern war now? Is it because time has moved on and guns were developed as a more efficient way to kill something? Umm...yeah. Lol. A spear may be as lethal sure. I stab a dude in the head, he dies as easily as if I shoot him. But which one is easier, more efficient, faster, and the more prevalent danger? Guns. I'll retract that the next time someone hides a spear in their trenchcoat to murder a bunch of students or moviegoers, instead of a gun.

#41 Edited by TazzMission (5488 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7 said:

@tazzmission: Yeah, for when they're in too close of quarters to use their guns or if they can't rely on their guns. That's what the training is for, as backup.

And be honest, why would we have been using spears since countless millenia BC, yet we're using guns in modern war now? Is it because time has moved on and guns were developed as a more efficient way to kill something? Umm...yeah. Lol. A spear may be as lethal sure. I stab a dude in the head, he dies as easily as if I shoot him. But which one is easier, more efficient, faster, and the more prevalent danger? Guns. I'll retract that the next time someone hides a spear in their trenchcoat to murder a bunch of students or moviegoers, instead of a gun.

:sigh: you really dont get it do you? instead of blindly accepting whatever a politician throws at you regardless wich party you may want to think for yourself. im 110% anti gun who believes violence dosent fix violence and i made the choice of not owning any and if you think banning them is going to fix anything than you really are blind. you can preach about how europe and australia have low crime rates but the usa isnt them so quit trying to make us them. why not ban driving next since people can be homicidal with cars? or why not ban the military as a whole since a lot of those guys have ptsd and can be a huge risk in society? you cant just ban one thing and pretend anything else is pure safe

#42 Posted by JakeN7 (12743 posts) - - Show Bio

@tazzmission: When did I say any of that? Are you arguing with me or yourself?

I never actually mentioned banning firearms. I do believe they need to be heavily regulated, and high-caliber and automatic firearms should be restricted from being purchased by citizens. You want to own a glock for self-defense? Fine. Rifle for hunting? Sure. In order to own them, you're going to have to jump through some hoops though. Only responsible owners need apply.

#43 Posted by SOG7dc (7569 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe we can all just behave ourselves like civilized humans with appreciation and value for life? No? Ok then. I buy my bullet proof vest and hope my hoody and music don't scare anyone. Lol

#44 Edited by TazzMission (5488 posts) - - Show Bio

@sog7dc said:

Maybe we can all just behave ourselves like civilized humans with appreciation and value for life? No? Ok then. I buy my bullet proof vest and hope my hoody and music don't scare anyone. Lol

buhahahaha good with that one because than hell would finally freeze over

#45 Posted by laflux (16927 posts) - - Show Bio

Aye, the puerile slogan that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." is back, eh. When are conservatives going to figure out how stupid and simplistic that sounds out loud?

LIBERIAL CANADIAN!!!!!!!

#46 Edited by Wolverine08 (44067 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux said:

@wolverine08 said:

Aye, the puerile slogan that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." is back, eh. When are conservatives going to figure out how stupid and simplistic that sounds out loud?

LIBERIAL CANADIAN!!!!!!!

Online
#47 Edited by laflux (16927 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: Yeah, trust a Canadian to bring a shield to a gun fight.........

#48 Edited by laflux (16927 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: Yeah, because only a Canadian would bring A SHEILD to a gun fight

#49 Posted by GraniteSoldier (8589 posts) - - Show Bio

What private citizenry should be allowed to own should be limited, in my opinion, but not all firearms. Shotguns and small caliber pistols are good for home defense, and bolt action rifles for hunting. I'm a military man myself but dont see the need for Joe Guy to own an M4. Just my two cents. The genius of the Constitution was it was written with the idea of Amendments and evolution with the times in mind. If we ignore that and exploit it for our own means we lost sight of what was intended. Again, just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

#50 Posted by _Cain_ (23670 posts) - - Show Bio

@granitesoldier: M4s, as I stated above would be necessary to create an armed

revolution and a balance of political power

And as for the self defense aspect, I want to ask a single question to all of the control assholes on here

Why has there never been a shooting at a gun show?