U.S.A Gun Control

I feel safer where I live as there is stricter rules on gun distribution. The US has fucked up early by having that every American deserves to own a gun in their constitution and it can't relly be undomne.

 

Maybe 10 rounds wouldn't be enough for a mother to defend her new born baby. And that 12th round saves the day.

 

USA is a pretty safe place to live in.. for the most part lol..

I guess you guys are used to fighting off home intruders with a shovel and thats cool.

In America, guns are part of a lifestyle.. and thats how its going to be

 

I think if they were buying of automatic weapons or something that is fine.

My main concern is that the government leaves us with basic weapons for defense, while criminals here have an abundance of weapons. Or far worse, some bs government tyranny comes into play as the current state of the US doesn't look well.

I say restrict which guns, detailed background checks, and then maybe they can stop their bitching. As it is, they're making it seem like guns are evil when in fact its the person holding it that has issue. But everyone's more comfortable labeling the killers a psychopaths, blaming guns, and ranting about how things could have been avoided.

Most of these shootings started with kids on pharmaceutical drugs such as Prozac. However the excuse said is that they went off it so they went crazy, when some of the drugs side effects are more harmful than the good it does.
I believe this is overlooked by everyone.

Then people are angry/emotional because of what happened and start blaming people or things. The gun didn't go "I am going to kill these children", it was someone with problems.

The shooter remains remembered as a lunatic who shot people randomly. When it should be further looked at to see what causes HIM/HER to behave like so, none of this media crap "Kept to himself....went off his drugs....completely lost it..." The same reasons have been given for the past shootings.

Now lets look at a more recent one, Chris Dorner. People are angry because people support the reasons Dorner mentioned. Doesn't mean they support his actions. Anyways, he for one had plenty of experience around guns. Now, obviously going out on a mission to kill those who did wrong against you or others isn't looked upon as sane, however he did so due the the fact that there's corruption and racism in many departments of authority that abuse their power. He lived through it all.

Now they're using his actions to help their Anti Gun policy get support. His actions may have been bad, but the blame went on guns again. They overlooked another persons reasons/cause, categorized him the same as past shooters and then said "LOOK SEE GUNS KILL PEOPLE".

Another example of how its the media and government that want focus on Gun Control is the school shooting at an Elementary. Guns were blamed again. Yet in China a guy went on a rampage with a knife killing and injuring plenty. Obviously what occurred here got more attention, but even foreign occurrences get mention on the news when its serious and especially when a similar even just happened here.

All guns should be allowed but in the right hands of the citizens not of authority.

Handguns however should be a basic right. If they were to ban guns, it would not be like other countries, because the guns are already here and are easily brought into the black market. So banning them would leave citizens open to gun violence without defense.

Grenades are illegal. Guess what? I know of people who have plenty of them.

Banning guns is ridiculous, restriction is acceptable. But the biggest thing I see the US avoiding is the rise of these actions due to illness/drugs that are legal and in Dorners case, corruption and racism.

This may sound funny, but have anyone seen the show "The Following" ? When they introduced it, my first thought was its acceptable to a make a show about how there's tons of people with illness following someone til death yet this is reality and has a high possibility of happening.

These days problematic people are ignored or worse made fun of, they go to dark places and truly dedicate themselves to their thoughts even til death. Some of these illnesses are made worse with legal drugs. But the main concern is guns?

In Dorners case, he was filled with rage due to injustices left unheard. He simply had it. His actions may be frowned upon but what is it that led him to that extent?

We look at the problem but avoid looking at any reasons/causes and leave it at "Phsycos".

 

I'm actually not positive whether I'm pro gun control or not; I'm pretty much in the center of this debate (and much farther to the right than most of my peers). I was arguing the gun control side here because it seemed to be the least popular/need the most help.

The proposed regulations might not have a massive impact, but restricting magazine sizes should help curtail the damage done by mass shootings, while not affecting the hunting/sporting/even defense purposes of the weapons.

I agree there is increased pressure on the administration to regulate guns, which can lead to hasty/unnecessary/harmful change, but I don't think any "nutjobs" in congress will benefit from stricter gun controls.

 

Where there is demand, there will ALWAYS be supply whether it be through legal or illegal means.



Real eyes, realize, real lies... Don't believe everything you see or hear.

I believe there is no black or white, there will always be shades of grey.

The US, is heading toward the path of a so called "police state" (a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population) and what better way to do this by abolishing the 2nd amendment? We can already see feudalism, (a system in which the rich only get richer while the poor gradually become poorer) reemerging. With you, the "peasants", falling into debt, while the Federal Reserve, the "Kings" becoming increasingly wealthy.

 

^ some of you just like conspiracy theories lol

it's kinda like with FB... people like and share bs stories and they're like.. oh wait this is fake and bs lol

do your own research.. don't believe everything on tv BUT don't believe everything on internet either... especially youtube.. with any major event, theres always a conspiracy that follows lol

 

We should be able to have guns, becuase not everyone is crazy.. Americans like to hunt, and protect ourselves from robbers!

 

I am all for better background checks and licenses but banning a gun based on how it looks is bullshit. High capacity magazines should NOT be banned either.

Why do I need an assault rifle? Well for one thing it's not an assault rifle, and AR is a gun capable of shooting three round burst or fully automatic. The semiauto only rifles are personal defense weapon (PDW). Full auto weapons are already banned. The only way a civilian can own one is the ones made before 1986, those guns aren't very 1337, you have to go through about six months of background checks and paperwork and they cost $15,000-$30,000.

I need one because they are awesome, because it is my second amendment right to own one. I need it for protection from a tyrannical government.

It has happened in the past many, many times? Whats stopping it from happening again? It may not be just because of guns but I'm sure they play a big part.

Something my little brother wrote "You don't say my hammer built that house over there, you say I built that house over there." So when it's a gun that's used to kill people it's the guns fault? HELL NO, shouldn't be, it's the asshole that pulled the trigger. The gun or any tool is nothing without a person using it for good or bad.

 

I live in canada usa neighbor but i think you guys should have guns from what ive seen your cops look very corrupt ... you need a way of protection but i think you need liscenses like we have in canada and firm backround checks for people purchasing

 

I don't think guns should be restricted from the citizenry. No restrictions at all.

 

How about other "arms", such as nuclear weapons?

Our cops are actually not very corrupt whatsoever. Of course, on large police forces, you will find some corrupt cops, but how are guns going to help you deal with them? Shooting a cop, no matter how corrupt, is a great way to get yourself killed or on death row.

 

If you're smart enough to build an atomic bomb, or wealthy enough to obtain one. I don't have a problem with that either.

 

Well I do. You support nuclear proliferation? Nuclear obtainment by non-state actors nullifies deterrence theory, meaning that nukes become offensive rather than defensive weapons. Trust me...you don't want this to happen.

Also, atomic bombs are definitely not the only type of nuclear weapons. If a man is allowed to drive a truck around with enriched uranium in the back (which isnt nearly as expensive to obtain as you would think), he could drive through police checkpoints claiming the second amendment and then start a dirty bomb in the middle of new york city...

Here's another example: you'd be comfortable with the guy sitting on the plane next to you having C4 strapped to his chest? "Dont worry bro, it's for protection. Just exercising some second amendment rights; don't mind me."

Clearly, there needs to be at least some restrictions on arms to prevent this absurdities. The debate should be, and is, focused on the middle ground.

 

No problem with anyone having the power do decimate an entire country or even the world because of what reasons? Personal freedom? I don't trust my neibors with grenades or pipes and neither does the gov't.

The thing I have against pro gun is that they are full out gun enthusiasts and weapon enthusiast with no real aim to control death toll or any other issues. The problem with anti gun is that they want no guns at all and thats just not possible. Which I do want. I want guns to have never been existed, their existence is just for killing. No other. But taking them out does put them in criminals hands and such. So what the problem is, is how far inbetween should the law be.

My main concern is life, not enjoyment.

 

Why are you comfortable with the political elite and their minions having access to nuclear arms? How many citizens do you think could actually obtain a nuclear weapon?

 

I'm not comfortable with anyone having nukes, but if someone has to have them, it should be state actors ("the political elite and their minions", if that's how you want to phrase it).

Stick with my original example: the "dirty bomb" (enriched uranium on the back of a truck). Osama Bin Laden could have funded one of those trucks to be placed at the heart of every Western city in the 1990s if there were an open market for the stuff. While not nearly as many deaths would occur as you would think, the bombs would serve as area denial devices for over 50 years to some of our species' most important infrastructure.
And you thought 9/11 was bad...

 

Really I don't see the reason anyone besides Military should own ARs, it just doesn't make sense to me. The main purpose of an AR is to fire as many bullets and hurt as many people as possible, so I don't see the self defense claim valid, when you could just the same go out and buy a shotgun or a handgun for self defense. Btw the shotgun would be way more effective as one pump of that shotgun would send anyone running before you had to shoot anyone. I do feel they should do physic analysis and a thorough background check. We can't prevent all shootings, but we could stop many of these violent shootings happening lately.

 

So the citizenry shouldn't have access to small arms or nuclear weapons because Osama Bin Laden and some other terrorists could fund attacks.

 

Building nuclear arms isn't that difficult, there are publicly released plans for quite a few (such as the original 2 and the H-Bomb)

The main thing that stops people from doing it is the inability to get the correct radioactive materials.