Jump to content

Gun Control


Cornipsus
 Share

Recommended Posts

I never said hunting should be cracked down upon. Notice the title "Gun control"

Then why is it relevant that you are a vegetarian. (For the record - I am too)

Notice the title "Gun control" and think about hunting. Think about the history of hunting. Note the number of species gone extinct before the firearm, and after. *Hint* *Hint*

tagflowsig.png

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

I am a disco dancer. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Kennesaw, GA, it is a law that every head of household own a gun and ammo for that gun (with some exceptions). The crime rate in Kennesaw is 1/5 that of other cities in GA.

Criminals are weak, lazy, and most importantly, cowards. If you want to discourage them, simply have equal firepower and they will cower in fear.

If you are a vegitarian, that has nothing to do with this topic. If you are a Vegan, that has a "little" to do with this topic. The debate of gun ownership is mosty about the criminal use of firearms to kill PEOPLE. Unless you are talking about canibals, veganism doesn't have much to do with hunting and hunters. Vegitarianism is about what some consider to be healthy eating (I have no opinion one way or the other on that). Veganism is about that PLUS animal treatment.

I do not own a gun, but I also do not have a problem with law abiding citizens owning guns. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Gun control is about keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Peace.

Total hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody should have guns except Policemans. That way, there would be less criminals it would be harder to kill people. That's my opinion, whether you like it or not.

And you sir, lack the intelligence to make a valid argument. If I am already going to break the law, then why not break the law while carrying a firearm? I've already shown that I don't abide by the laws of society, so why wouldn't I break a few more? This is why Gun-Free-Zones don't work - you've just disarmed the part of the populace that was the deterrent, and made them open to attack. This is why the VT shooting left so many dead while the attmepted shooting at Appalachian School of Law was abortive.

As for my personal position, I believe that every citizen of the United States has a right to own a functional firearm. Having said right, you then have a responsibility to serve your community (as an unorganized militia called out for local emergencies [like a kid goes missing]), similar to how most states take Jury Duty Lists from DMV rolls. Some think this the stance that SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) will take in the Heller case later this year.

TAC_08a.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point I have. Gun countrol isn't designed to stop serial killers shooting people. It is designed to stop the normal citizen shooting someone without thinking about it in a similar way people often commit suicide without thinking about it (not that I think suicide should be illegal).

KaHuc.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want you to reread that sentence, think for 5 minutes, and post again on why that completely has to do with this argument.

HINT: Who besides criminals and police own guns?

me

sig.jpg

~97% of teens won't stand up for Anything. Put this on your sig if you're one of the 3% who've fallen down trying.

Oh, and there's 3 types of people in this world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[qoute](not that I think suicide should be illegal).

why would that be illegal? I aint for it but even if it was, it wouldn't matter to that person because s/he would already be dead

sig.jpg

~97% of teens won't stand up for Anything. Put this on your sig if you're one of the 3% who've fallen down trying.

Oh, and there's 3 types of people in this world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point I have. Gun countrol isn't designed to stop serial killers shooting people. It is designed to stop the normal citizen shooting someone without thinking about it in a similar way people often commit suicide without thinking about it (not that I think suicide should be illegal).

I understand what you are saying, however the best way to do that is to up the punishments for committing a crime with a firearm, and by arming the populace.

TAC_08a.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tone it down a little, folks. We're all friends here.

 

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

Nobody should have guns except Policemans. That way, there would be less criminals it would be harder to kill people. That's my opinion, whether you like it or not.

And you sir, lack the intelligence to make a valid argument. If I am already going to break the law, then why not break the law while carrying a firearm? I've already shown that I don't abide by the laws of society, so why wouldn't I break a few more? This is why Gun-Free-Zones don't work - you've just disarmed the part of the populace that was the deterrent, and made them open to attack. This is why the VT shooting left so many dead while the attmepted shooting at Appalachian School of Law was abortive.

As for my personal position, I believe that every citizen of the United States has a right to own a functional firearm. Having said right, you then have a responsibility to serve your community (as an unorganized militia called out for local emergencies [like a kid goes missing]), similar to how most states take Jury Duty Lists from DMV rolls. Some think this the stance that SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) will take in the Heller case later this year.

And sir are flaming me will I am politely arugeing. Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about the history of hunting. Note the number of species gone extinct before the firearm, and after. *Hint* *Hint*
The Dodo. I hope we all feel guilty for that. The extinction of a completely harmless bird, and why? Because they were easy, because they knew no better, and because we lorded it over them because of their lack of sense.

Guilty, the lot of us.

Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.
There will always be other means to commit a crime besides the use of a firearm. Do you have a knife in the kitchen? A baseball bat, perhaps? A pen? Firearms are not the embodiment of violence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about the history of hunting. Note the number of species gone extinct before the firearm, and after. *Hint* *Hint*
The Dodo. I hope we all feel guilty for that. The extinction of a completely harmless bird, and why? Because they were easy, because they knew no better, and because we lorded it over them because of their lack of sense.

Guilty, the lot of us.

Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.
There will always be other means to commit a crime besides the use of a firearm. Do you have a knife in the kitchen? A baseball bat, perhaps? A pen? Firearms are not the embodiment of violence.

Why is nobody reading what I'm typing? I typed "less violence" NOT "no vioolence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sir are flaming me will I am politely arugeing. Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.

You see, this cannot be true. Violence will exist as long as violent people exist, and there seems to be a lot of violent people. As for giving guns only to officers and such, that cannot work either. Take illegal drugs for example: they're illegal. Yet somehow, they can be widely distributed throughout the country. Guns, even if illegal to anyone not an officer, will be distributed in some way to those seeking them. Just making them illegal will not prevent people from getting them.

I realize this doesn't add much to the debate, such as an answer, but I don't know what an answer could be. I am for gun rights, but I do realize the drawbacks of having them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bossk: I know what you wrote. I can read, don't you worry. :)

But taking away half of the firearms will not immediately halve the violent crime rate. If somebody wishes to commit a violent act, they will do so by any means at hand; the gun only provides a weapon of convenience, like the knife in your kitchen as you leave by the back door to murder your neighbour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A criminal could go into a bank with a knife. Everyone runs away as he chases them. With a gun, he shoots them from a distiance. get it? Not as many peple would get hurt.

Or, a criminal goes into a bank with a pistol. He is immediately gunned down by several armed security guards. Nobody gets hurt, except the idiot criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A criminal could go into a bank with a knife. Everyone runs away as he chases them. With a gun, he shoots them from a distiance. get it? Not as many peple would get hurt.

It is true not many people would be hurt in a knife chase, but it's near impossible to get every criminal's firearm and his supply [if he has one] and his supplier [someone has to be selling him guns]. They will always have a way of getting firearms, no matter what. Maybe the amount of criminals carrying firearms will decrease, but only temporarily. Illegal gun suppliers will want to distribute as many guns as possible, while criminals are trying to get those guns. As long as there is a supply from somewhere, it will reach those wanting the guns. And there has to be a supply somewhere; where else are the officers going to get their guns and ammo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A criminal could go into a bank with a knife. Everyone runs away as he chases them. With a gun, he shoots them from a distiance. get it? Not as many peple would get hurt.
Why would a criminal hold up a bank from a distance? Moreso, how?

I'm sorry, I'm splitting hairs. I do see your point. Really. And we both (and 'we' means all who disagree with Bossk) have valid points, which would only be resolved through practical initiatives, and actually doing something.

Rid guns, you will, by law of averages, reduce crime.

However, rid guns, and most will find alternate means. pyrochild proved this.

See?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...