Gun control

[Shredderbeam]

Yes, we shouldnt even be able to have guns, if people want to hunting so bad, then they can do it with old fasiond shit.

It's nobody else's business.

Guns are just going to cause problems and wont help anyone.

Tell that to the single mother living in New York City.

Guns don't help protect you, and if someone is going to kill you, you probably wont have the chance to pull out your gun.

They certainly give you a fighting chance, which most people would probably agree is better than none at all.

Do you mean there wouldn't be a record of you're ownership, or do you mean you would be able to own any type of weapon, or just all of it?

I mean all of it. I'm a responsible gun owner, the government doesn't need to track what I do, or give me approval for anything.

 

[ARM3DNINJA3]

i dont see the point in taking the guns anyway because the government are supposed to be taking drugs away but even then kids at my school smoke weed on the tennis courts :/

 

[1337_Byte]

It's pointless, some guns may be a bit stronger then other ones but that's no reason to make them illegal. When they're illegal, people who commit crimes get them just as easily as if they were legal, and the normal people don't get them to defend themselves. People should be able to own any firearms they can get their hands on, as long as they are used properly. The government needs to seriously stop thinking that they can control everything, they want to control what drugs people can take, what guns they can use, and many other stupid things.

 

[Annex]

well... you see someone walking down the street, you gonna walk up to them and say, "hey nice gun... can i have a look? Yeh... trey calbire 24, mines only a 22 and a half, shot a beer can once... it was crazy..."

In Australia, they control the whole gun thing, they need to so they can keep people shooting other people - and believe me they need to.

I can see how you guys want to have a gun with you and everything, because believe me i've wanted to be holding a gun in certain situations, but will you honestly ever use it?
Someone breaks into your house - you shoot him... whats that? 25 - life for murder? Worth it?

Shredderbeam, what do you think?
Do you seriously want people to legally walking around with military-grade assault rifles?

1) Nobody would walk around talking like that, thats generic elementary school assumptions, Not everyone is a generic idiot, and you should know better than to label all Americans as such.

2) When guns were legalized in Texas, people thought that simple traffic accidents were going to become shootouts, however this hasn't and isn't happening, the people who shoot other people are the people who are defending themselves, criminals who would shoot you either way, or mentally unfit to own and carry a gun. Just because the average joe can carry a military grade m16 doesn't mean hes going to shoot up walmart because he thought he was ripped off.

3) If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, at worst you might get manslaughter, which isn't 25 to life at all. Most cases the person shooting is a youth or a woman, and the house is being broken into by grown men or a group of grown men, making it justifiable as they would have no chance of surviving otherwise, and also there is fear to be taken into consideration.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

So heres my little two cents... I think that the only people who should not be allowed to buy guns are the mentally ill. because criminals are going to get their hands on a gun whether its illegal or not. I guess it would be harder to obtain, but if they wanted to, i'm sure a gun wouldn't be that hard to get.
oh, and i guess you could refuse to sell guns to people with previous jail-time, but only if their crime involved a gun.

Someone breaks into your house - you shoot him... whats that? 25 - life for murder? Worth it?

No, its called "self defense." you just have to prove that he was in your house when you shot him, and that he was a threat.

 

[Blurb]

i believe i have the right to own a minigun

 

[rs nechryeal]

It is an amendment to have the right to bear arms, this means you have the right to carry a registered gun, so if the government restricts you to only a pistol, how the hell will you shoot a deer...

u can actually hunt with a pistol. ur probably thinking of a 9mm which i would doubt is good for hunting. but a nice caliber pistol would easily kill a deer

 

[TJ]

Depends in my opinion.

If you have past gun control problems then yes.

But then you are more likely to shoot someone if you do have the gun.

Then more violence.

Etc.

 

[thuglifelt]

I think it would be better if the goverment could not control the peoples rights to own a firearm due to the fact of protection etc.

 

[megaman 2006]

I mean all of it. I'm a responsible gun owner, the government doesn't need to track what I do, or give me approval for anything.

I'm leaning towards your side now. The only thing that Puts me for gun control,
is the tracking.

Say someone gets shot, and the police find the gun. Right now they would be able to track the man who owns the gun, providing its not illegal. I know this wont happen that often, but it still might be worth it.

 

[ang1oflite]

i believe that we should be allowed to own guns and keep them without the government doing anything about it unless we give them reason.....most of the gun shootings and stuff at schools are becuz jerks like to pick on smaller ppl or mentally challenged ppl....if that stuff stopped i believe school shootings would be alot less likely....on the streets its all about whos badder and who owns wat parts..that stuff is just dumb

 

[Magic Arrow]

I agree to a certain Point.

The gun you own should depend on experience.

Ex-coms Should have 0 tolerance on Guns

 

[Jopeto]

A society with guns spreads more fear then a society without guns.
Although some may look at it as a form of protection, they are protecting themselves from the other owners of firearms that they are surrounded by.

 

[Shredderbeam]

A society with guns spreads more fear then a society without guns.
Although some may look at it as a form of protection, they are protecting themselves from the other owners of firearms that they are surrounded by.

Or perhaps aggression can exist without guns.

The gun you own should depend on experience.

Ex-coms Should have 0 tolerance on Guns

First, some ex-convicts are not violent people.

Second, to state that they cannot purchase guns implies that the government must be involved to some degree in the gun purchasing process, which is a big no-no.

 

[adrenalinesnipe]

i think that anyone that is over 19 or 21 depending where you live you should be able to have a gun as long as your not a ex-con,felon or you are mentally unsafe with a gun i dont think restricting guns will decrease crime because how many cons actually buy their guns from a gun store if i were one i would buy one off the streets

 

[Annex]

Or perhaps aggression can exist without guns.



First, some ex-convicts are not violent people.

Second, to state that they cannot purchase guns implies that the government must be involved to some degree in the gun purchasing process, which is a big no-no.

No it doesn't necessarily, you make it law that you can't sell guns to anyone convicted of any violent using a firearm. Firearms shops have the ability to check backgrounds (in Canada anyways), so you can route all private sales through there, and then if a repeat offender uses a gun to commit a crime, you charge the person who sold it to him for aiding and abetting in the crime that was committed. That way the involvement of the Gov't is minimal, and you stop past criminals from getting firearms, as well as take people illegally dealing firearms off the streets.

 

[be ez]

WTF?!?!?! Ye, If they are known to have committed a crime with a gun they shouldn't be able to buy one, I'm from canada we don't have all these problems..... (Crap-ass americans)

 

[Shredderbeam]

No it doesn't necessarily, you make it law that you can't sell guns to anyone convicted of any violent using a firearm. Firearms shops have the ability to check backgrounds (in Canada anyways), so you can route all private sales through there, and then if a repeat offender uses a gun to commit a crime, you charge the person who sold it to him for aiding and abetting in the crime that was committed. That way the involvement of the Gov't is minimal, and you stop past criminals from getting firearms, as well as take people illegally dealing firearms off the streets.

Then backgrounds (federally maintained logs of your criminal activity) must exist.

 

[Annex]

Then backgrounds (federally maintained logs of your criminal activity) must exist.

They already do and they are necessary to any society which wishes to keep sexual predators away from children, prosecute those more severely who keep committing summary offenses simply because the punishment is rather lenient, and other related issues like such. Not having some system would be rather stupid as anyone can lie about what they have done and there would be no proof to contradict that.

 

[g0tg0t]

I think gun control is nessacary (spelling?) but only to a certain extent. What use could any military-grade machine gun have in everyday life? A pistol, shotgun etc. could be used for hunting. But i don't think that military guns have much practical use.