Gun Laws- Positive or Negative?

[Sgeckledorf Spoongeblorb]

Guns kill. That's an advantage.

 

[Mankanshoku Mako]

A rapist won't be deterred by eletctroshock (possibly turned on even more, but we're no talking about fetishes),

Not caring about electrocution? Must be a pretty hot chick he's atempting to rape.

 

[Jb]

Very well, what about hunting then? Should you be allowed to carry guns to hunt game for fun?

 

[littlea53]

The problem is that with a tazer, you are going to have to be a lot closer than a weapon. You also are going to have to hope that the attacker does not come after you when you stop the juice. Furthermore you will have to walk away at some point to dial the police. When it comes to some one breaking into your house, you MUST assume the worst case scenario, and as such you MUST assume the person there is not only there to steal your stuff, but hurt you and your family. As such lethal force with a "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later" policy is the best, and safest way to protect yourself and others.

And the best way to learn that strategy is to be in the situation yourself. I was once being chased through the woods by a 500 pound boar (exaggeration). Hugest tusks I ever saw (should of taken a picture). My .32 Beretta Tomcat saved my life since I dropped my AR in panic.

Yeah because being tied up with a 10 pound handgun that you have load a bullet into chamber so it makes a loud sound obviously puts you at a better advantage.

EDIT; Ninja'd

I've silently loaded a bullet into the chamber of my Arisaka. Just got to keep it well oiled and cared for. And my .32 weighs WAY less than 10 pounds. My AR only weighs about 7 pounds.

Not caring about electrocution? Must be a pretty hot chick he's atempting to rape.

Well, keyword "Stun" Gun.

Very well, what about hunting then? Should you be allowed to carry guns to hunt game for fun?

People do that....... It's a legitimate sport. Just like Skeet Shooting.

 

[Mankanshoku Mako]

Well, keyword "Stun" Gun.

Unless I'm mistaken, a "stun gun" is a weapon that generates an electric shock in an attempt to harm whatever creature the electric shock comes in contact with, so I see no problem with my post.

 

[littlea53]

Unless I'm mistaken, a "stun gun" is a weapon that generates an electric shock in an attempt to harm whatever creature the electric shock comes in contact with, so I see no problem with my post.

Touche. But they're not ment to kill. just stun

 

[DasBoot]

I'm fine with guns I think people should have a respect for them and such. But I don't think having a strict gun law is going to stop people from getting them. They're many ways to get them.

 

[Snipehsheep]

I say you should only be allowed to carry one handgun, with one round of ammo in it.

Edit: As far as walking around in a city or on the subway or something.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I think regulating guns is a postive thing, but outlawing all guns is implausible. Most people should be allowed to get a license, maybe after being screened or checked, and then buy a handgun for their own defense.

 

[ChedWick]

Why not, guns are made with the sole reason of killing, owning is sayimg your willing to kill, I find it more effective if people owned Tazers or Stun guns, same effect, maybe even better.

I'm willing to kill to protect things and people that are dear to me.

 

[darkcharizard58]

Yes i think they are positive. There needs to be limitations on guns in my opinion. However i dont believe guns shouldnt be banned

 

[cantab]

As someone in the UK, I think the USA should have seriously restricted guns long ago. Most nations with more restrictive gun laws have lower violent crime rates; though that doesn't prove a causal relationship, it seems to me that the benefits in terms of self-protection for civilians are largely negated by the ease for even "casual" criminals to obtain guns. Those whose objective is to shoot someone will of course be able to get a gun anyway, but those whose objective is merely theft are less likely to obtain a gun if doing so is more difficult, illegal in itself, and their intended targets are unlikely to be carrying guns.

However, it also seems to me that it's too late now. Guns have become part of some of America's culture. Legislation can only be effective if it is in tune with what the people want, as shown by the failure of Prohibition, and more recently by the need for ever-more-advanced cameras to enforce speed limits. Also, as some have mentioned, there's more legitimate uses for guns in the USA than in some European countries. In the UK we don't have big game. We have farm pests like foxes, and sport shooting of game birds. Shotguns remain the easiest type of gun to obtain in the UK, with the burden of proof being on the police if they want to say you're not suitable to hold one and no need to register each shotgun individually.

I'm going to abstain from the poll, because well thought out laws, that are in tune with what the people want, are a good thing, but knee-jerk laws passed in reaction to a single high-profile crime and ignoring the wants of law-abiding citizens are not a good thing. (Sadly, the UK has had too many of the latter over recent decades, not just limited to gun laws either).

 

[7 tyranitars]

Why not, guns are made with the sole reason of killing

this.

guns are an unnecarery thing no wonder crime rates are higher in the usa

for protecting yourself there are other efficiant ways there should be a balance between not being able to do anything ( a law we had that you can't harm someon who is robbing you, breaking in to your house which isn't good, the only good thing our right wing liberals did is that your now actualy able to protect yourself) and shooting someon allowing guns with out a lot of restrictions gives people opportunities it is a double edged sword while people can protect theirselfs if it is easier to get weapons there will be more people killed

 

[giratina hates shaymin]

I am a proud resident of the State of Florida (one of the few states that allow suppressors and automatic firearms to be legally bought and owned) and a avid weapons collector. Recently a close friend of mine got arrested by moving to California while attempting to transfer his Russian PPSh-41 (His grandfather served with the Red Army in WWII) and had most of his other weapons including my favorite Fully-Functional Nambu Type 100 which was my personal gift to him.

On that note, do you think strict Gun safety is unfair? In my opinion, I believe SOME states are to strict with gun safety thinking that a mass murder will occur if they allow residents to own guns and certain accessories. Debate!

If it belongs to your grandfather then he should be able to have it. Are they seriously taking possessions from ww2 veterans?

 

[charizardreams]

Eh, I don't really have a one way opinion on gun laws. I don't think people should be able to have guns to harm, but collectors I think are okay.

 

[littlea53]

If it belongs to your grandfather then he should be able to have it. Are they seriously taking possessions from ww2 veterans?

Unfortunately. Just because it has fully-automatic capability. And as a note my friend is a class 3 firearms collector. So he has a FFL.

this.

guns are an unnecarery thing no wonder crime rates are higher in the usa

for protecting yourself there are other efficiant ways there should be a balance between not being able to do anything ( a law we had that you can't harm someon who is robbing you, breaking in to your house which isn't good, the only good thing our right wing liberals did is that your now actualy able to protect yourself) and shooting someon allowing guns with out a lot of restrictions gives people opportunities it is a double edged sword while people can protect theirselfs if it is easier to get weapons there will be more people killed

Well if guns are banned or is restricted to the point where it is a felon for non-ex military to have one, will they ban knives too? How about our fists or feet? How about our teeth? Beer bottles, acids, lighters, pots and pans, machetes, chainsaws? I could go on with all the possible weapons out there that can kill/maim with a little ingenuity.

As someone in the UK, I think the USA should have seriously restricted guns long ago. Most nations with more restrictive gun laws have lower violent crime rates; though that doesn't prove a causal relationship, it seems to me that the benefits in terms of self-protection for civilians are largely negated by the ease for even "casual" criminals to obtain guns.. Also, as some have mentioned, there's more legitimate uses for guns in the USA than in some European countries. In the UK we don't have big game. We have farm pests like foxes, and sport shooting of game birds. Shotguns remain the easiest type of gun to obtain in the UK, with the burden of proof being on the police if they want to say you're not suitable to hold one and no need to register each shotgun individually.

That is why I love my country so. In Florida, we have boar, deer, alligators on rare occasions, duck, coyotes, and others. The main point to consider here is that as you said, There's more legitimate uses for guns in the USA than in some European countries.. On a side note, It is our constitutional rights that allows us the right to bear arms.

I think regulating guns is a postive thing, but outlawing all guns is implausible. Most people should be allowed to get a license, maybe after being screened or checked, and then buy a handgun for their own defense.

Thats what there doing now. But some individuals have more precarious intentions on mind.

I say you should only be allowed to carry one handgun, with one round of ammo in it.

Edit: As far as walking around in a city or on the subway or something.

What if you miss? That's why they invented extra magazines that allow for more ammunition capacity. To keep firing until you accomplish the task at hand. Such as skeet shooting or hunting Big Game.

 

[meteor64]

What if you miss? That's why they invented extra magazines that allow for more ammunition capacity. To keep firing until you accomplish the task at hand. Such as skeet shooting or hunting Big Game.

If you miss evey shot in your round, then you're a crap shot and should definately not be allowed to have any more. You don't give a man a chainsaw when you know he's likely to chop his foot off with it.

 

[PokeJustice]

Ah, hell. Not this thread again.

I honestly have no problem at all with our European chums disliking the United States. I view this as a reactionary stance and probably an understandable one--perhaps an inevitable one. I am no patriot.

I have long pondered the question of why Europeans absolutely abhor firearms (a stance usually accompanied by knowing nothing about firearms or the issue proper) and I have come across the answer.

The European ethic is a properly statist ethic. Europeans have a dim view of guns because their governments do. This explains why a person from Europe is inclined to appeal to decisions made by their government when attempting to rationalize their loathing of firearms, e.g., "Firearms were completely banned here in 19xx, and we clearly made the right decision," etc. Note the usage of "we" in the previous sentence--the speaker was not part of the body that "made the right decision," the speaker made no decision at all; the speaker's government did.

A positive view of your government, which includes but is not limited to patriotism (which is very little more than ego), naturally leads in this instance to disdain for firearms and snobbery toward those who disagree with you.

This explains so much, does it not?

EDIT: I felt the need to remind readers that I write this only half-seriously.

 

[meteor64]

Ah, hell. Not this thread again.

I honestly have no problem at all with our European chums disliking the United States. I view this as a reactionary stance and probably an understandable one--perhaps an inevitable one. I am no patriot.

I have long pondered the question of why Europeans absolutely abhor firearms (a stance usually accompanied by knowing nothing about firearms or the issue proper) and I have come across the answer.

The European ethic is a properly statist ethic. Europeans have a dim view of guns because their governments do. This explains why a person from Europe is inclined to appeal to decisions made by their government when attempting to rationalize their loathing of firearms, e.g., "Firearms were completely banned here in 19xx, and we clearly made the right decision," etc. Note the usage of "we" in the previous sentence--the speaker was not part of the body that "made the right decision," the speaker made no decision at all; the speaker's government did.

A positive view of your government, which includes but is not limited to patriotism (which is very little more than ego), naturally leads in this instance to disdain for firearms and snobbery toward those who disagree with you.

This explains so much, does it not?

Not really. I can assure you I am far from positive in inclination towards my government, and I most certainly am not patriotic. Yet I still don't see the point in the continued use of firearms. I will not advocate banning them globally, but I do think that its got to a point where the damage has already been done, and those who say they rely on them now may not have necessarily had to- and probably don't even now.
I do find the rash overgeneralisation and stereotyping you have here rather... ignorant, amongst other things. I hope this is just a misinterpretation.
Edit- Although, If that was half serious, I'm not so fussed, as long as thats not an honest interpretation of things.

 

[darkcharizard58]

As someone in the UK, I think the USA should have seriously restricted guns long ago. Most nations with more restrictive gun laws have lower violent crime rates; though that doesn't prove a causal relationship, it seems to me that the benefits in terms of self-protection for civilians are largely negated by the ease for even "casual" criminals to obtain guns. Those whose objective is to shoot someone will of course be able to get a gun anyway, but those whose objective is merely theft are less likely to obtain a gun if doing so is more difficult, illegal in itself, and their intended targets are unlikely to be carrying guns.

However, it also seems to me that it's too late now. Guns have become part of some of America's culture. Legislation can only be effective if it is in tune with what the people want, as shown by the failure of Prohibition, and more recently by the need for ever-more-advanced cameras to enforce speed limits. Also, as some have mentioned, there's more legitimate uses for guns in the USA than in some European countries. In the UK we don't have big game. We have farm pests like foxes, and sport shooting of game birds. Shotguns remain the easiest type of gun to obtain in the UK, with the burden of proof being on the police if they want to say you're not suitable to hold one and no need to register each shotgun individually.

I'm going to abstain from the poll, because well thought out laws, that are in tune with what the people want, are a good thing, but knee-jerk laws passed in reaction to a single high-profile crime and ignoring the wants of law-abiding citizens are not a good thing. (Sadly, the UK has had too many of the latter over recent decades, not just limited to gun laws either).

The thing is, guns arent really necessary in Europe. And the the right to bear arms has been twisted so everyone believes that we should own guns. Thats not what it means though.

As for crime rates, if guns were outlawed people would still get them. Just like drugs are illegal people get them all the time