Jump to content

Debate: The Legalisation of Guns


survulus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, and welcome to a debate topic. Firstly you guys should all know the rules, be intelligent and respectful.

Now, this is a topic I he talked about before, but I want to see some more views on it. I'm from Scotland so guns aree illegal here. And rightly so I think. However in some countries, the big one being the USA, gun are of course legal. Are you in support of the legalisation of firearms? If so, why?

I'm opposed, I don't think that something invented purely for being deadly has any place in a safe society. Obviously taking away guns doesn't fix everything, but that doesn't make guns a good thing.

That's my starting statment. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can use Paint.NET to create images of racial hate and the encouragement of violence. I can use Paint.NET to create images that would be considered illegal in some parts of the world. I can use Paint.NET to create images that would turn your stomach. I can use Paint.NET as a weapon of mass dysfunction.

How can you just sit there and let millions of people have access to such a weapon?

And, yet... nothing is being done. Who should bear the blame?

Legislation starts with you.

Click to play:
j.pngs.pngd.pnga.pngp.png
Download: BoltBait's Plugin Pack | CodeLab | and how about a Computer Dominos Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except guns kill people. Paint.NET, at its worse, could be nasty.

Or rather, people with guns have higher chances to kill people. Probably because they have a gun. We can either educate people to not shoot each other, or remove their ability to shoot people. Which has the most chances of preventing murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegalizing firearms in the United States will not stop people having them. The Founding Fathers realized this, and that is why they wrote the second amendment to the Constitution, allowing law-abiding citizens to have firearms. Their thinking was (and it is correct) if criminals will have guns either way, why not allow law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves in the rare occasion that they need to? As the old adage goes, "When guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns."

The fact is that the U.S. Constitution states that there may be no law written to abridge the right of the U.S. citizen to keep and bear arms. It is a good law, and deserves to remain.

And no, I don't own a gun.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But some criminals would not go to such extrodinary lengths to get a gun. If you are in a country where you feel you need to arm yourself to be safe I would seriously question the law enforcement authorities, if it feels like an every man for himself situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

Firstly, that quote tells me nothing more than Benjamin Franklin's opinion and provides no reason for supporting it.

Secondly, surely what qualifies as "essential liberty" and "temporary safety" is objective? You could probably use the same quote to argue for total anarchy as it provides "essential liberty." But although one could argue that the quote implies specifically to one's rights ending where another's begin, another could yet argue that gun-control ensures that citizens retain their rights by ending the rights of the individual where his could be considered to end.

KaHuc.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number 1 one killer of teenagers is car crashes:

Around 6,000 teenage drivers are killed in auto accidents each year.

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

It seems to me that cars are MUCH more dangerous than guns. Shouldn't we be ban them instead?

Click to play:
j.pngs.pngd.pnga.pngp.png
Download: BoltBait's Plugin Pack | CodeLab | and how about a Computer Dominos Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number 1 one killer of teenagers is car crashes:

Around 6,000 teenage drivers are killed in auto accidents each year.

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

It seems to me that cars are MUCH more dangerous than guns. Shouldn't we be ban them instead?

Except cars have a use that doesn't involve killing people. Guns... not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has stated WHY, the second admendment was put in place...

In case the government tried to become like a dictatorship, and kill who THEY please to protect there power.

Sound familier....??? How many contries are ruled like this???...now, how much freedom do the people have to prosper, and better themselves and thier contry...?? These counties have been ruined and made into 3rd world countries by that kind of rule...

Get some balls, if you love your county..IF, EVER YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO OVERTHOUGH YOUR GOVERNMENT..YOU WILL NEED A GUN !!!...PERIOD.

Thank God, in over 200 years, we in the US have not had to resorted to this, as our for-farthers did to break away from England...YES, They used guns to fight the British on US soil, to protect and break away from a monarchy government that crippled to many civil rights. And moved to new land to do it.

By allowing citizens to own guns, the people have have a check and balance over the governments power.

The original intent (I believe) was to allow the people overtake a very currupt government, IF it ever got that far. By then, Voting is gone, and guns are outlawed. And the Government does what it wants to who it wants....

BTW...One of the princibles of Communism is to "Dis-Arm" the geneal population, as to protect the Governing party and power.

The 2nd Admendment is a good law, and needs to stay in place in the USA.

OTOH...I do believe that VERY FEW weapons should be baned for public use...Assult weapons comes to mind...BUT, Maybe not...just have stricker regulations to have one per family. They all kill, I know, these can kill 20 people in 10 seconds though...A hand gun can not, nor can a standard rifle..Assult weapons are made for WAR..NOT Hunting Deer, Elk, or Turkies.

Enjoy your photoghaphy, even if your spouse doesn't

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Canada you can own a fire arm but you must have some key things. Believe it or not Canada gun laws used to be as bad as the US. That was untill 1989 when Marc Lepine killed 14 women at a college. Gun laws hit hard and many types of guns were banned.

So what has this done for Canada, simple it dropped the death rate down and made it harder for idiots to get guns. But goverment is lacking on the laws now, the gun banned list has not been updated and it just dumb when you read it and it says things like SVD 7.62mm banned. Ok you banned a 7.62mm rifle that can pirce body armor but whats this ! I can pick my self up a M95 .50 Cal rifle that can shoot through a tank or armor car :roll:. Because of things like that, nut jobs like Kimveer Gill can get there hands on high power weapons that were not made for hunting but were made for killing people. I thought for sure after that 2006 shooting at yet another college gun laws would change again and make it harder.

I am not saying that banning guns is a good thing. I am saying we need to make it harder for people to get access to guns and should not be handing people AK47's as there not made for hunting. Guns like the AK47 were made for killing, just ask the maker of it Mikhail Kalashnikov.

Sure gangs and what not well still be able to buy guns on the streets but most shooting are not by gangs. There by normal everyday people. Someone gets in a fight with a friend, grabs a gun and kills them. Boyfriend finds out his girlfriend is cheating on him so he gets a gun and kills her. Not having it is what saves lives as it makes it harder. People rather a gun over rope or a kinfe as it lets them get a upper hand and the victim can't run faster then a bullet.

As for the gang members who buy guns on the street. Well a lot of people I know have the same view on it as I do. I don't care as long as there killing each other. Its only when non gang members die in crossfire that it makes news.

Now this is what you really need to think about:

Now as I said I don't think they should be banned but limited by laws so it harder for people to get them.

Canada: Guns are limited, some types banned and harder to get a gun.

School/College/University shootings: 8

Ages of Shooters: 14 - 52

Number killed to date: 25

Britain: Guns are banned.

School/College/University shootings: 1 (Can't really find that much info at this hour in the night)

Ages of Shooters: 44

Number killed to date: 18

USA: Guns flow like water

School/College/University shootings: 47

Ages of Shooters: unknown it ranges from 5 year old right up to adults.

Number killed to date: 176

See any big jumps in numbers there. Wonder what happened. Well I will tell you what happened. The Major shootings in Canada were done by adults, people who had access to guns. The major ones in the USA were done by kids who had an unbelievable amount of access to guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

this quote was written for those who were loyalists at the time of the American revolution. it meant that those who wanted to give up their freedom to avoid fighting with England should have neither. doesn't apply to this topic at all.

i have to agree with david again. i believe we share many ideals david. :wink:

criminals will get anything if they want it. Drugs, illegal in the US, but many people have them and they are taken around the country. same thing would happen with guns. criminals would get them, and law abiding citizens would have no defense against it. And, if you think they don't feel safe because of law enforcement, what if you live out in the country, somewhere in the middle of farmers acres and acres of fields. A criminal can easily do harm there. With houses so far apart, and police will have to travel long ways, you need to protect yourself. everything can't be provided for you all the time.

edit: blooper, people have the right to own a gun. it is an object that does harm if misused, but then again so is drain cleaner.If every single person in the world was a good person, then everyone could have a gun. Bad people will harm with anything, like a jar, so by your logic, we should take it away. But like you say, a jar has other uses. So does a gun. Hunting, recreation, etc.... Fencing practices the art of killing, but we allow it. it shows people how to use a sword. you can't ban something becauswe it it used for killing, or that is its "only" use.

Edit2: hitman, about your university thing,

USA- population-305,186,613

Canada- population-33,399,600

big difference. and, like a a little more than a quarter of Canada is ice, so less universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...