Leave your opinions on gun control. For it? Against it? State your reasons why. Let's try to keep open minds and actually discuss this hot topic. I'll start, feel free to debate with me. I'll happily oblige.
Guns are not bad. Let's make this clear now. People are bad, and people will use anything to kill somebody else. The taking and restricting of guns, ammo, magazines, and other gun-related products is an illogical and irrational response to a tragic incident. I think that there needs to be a synthesis of ideas, rather than partisan ideals being implemented on our American society.
Hmm... another gun thread. Lots of these recently.
I'll bite though :D
Yes, people are the ones pulling the trigger.
When I say I want gun control, I'm not approaching this purely from a "who's at fault" point of view, I'm approaching this from a "How can we make the least amount of people die?" kind of way.
And in my opinion, making laws that restrict hormonally deranged 12 year olds from possessing an AK-47 are part of said plan to make less people die.
Also, I don't care if you're the one using the AK-47 and that it's not to blame, you don't need an AK-47 to begin with -_-
I agree that there needs to be stricter regulations as to who may own a gun. But let's be honest. Let's look at another prevalent problem in the US, even the world. DRUGS. They are banned. They are regulated. And criminals still obtain them. What makes anyone think that they will not find a way to also obtain a gun? The only people who will be affected are law-abiding citizens. It will also open the door to and place a blanket of comfort to those looking to break in houses. I believe it was around 40% of criminals in prison say that they did not break into a house because they were worried the owner had firearms. I think it is a detterent. And a good one.
Also, it is a common misconception that AK-47s or AR-15s are "killing machines". Both guns can be used for recreational use, such as trapshooting, or hunting. Yes, they have been used in the military for ease and lightness of the guns.
So if drugs were legalized, there would be no increase in drug use? I don't think so.
Maybe gun control can't keep guns out of the hands of all organized crime. That doesn't mean it won't decrease gun deaths. Gun control decreases impulse killings- we aren't talking gang warefare or drug cartels here, we're talking about a guy getting drunk and attacking his wife. Also, regulations can't keep guns out of everyone's hands, but it can keep them out of some criminals' hands. At the very least it can reduce accidental gun deaths among law-abiding citizens.
Obviosuly no policy will be 100% effective; society has a zero-tolerance policy on ra.pe but it still happens. That doesn't mean we should leagalize it. Same with gun use- we can't completely keep firearms out of the country but that doens't mean we shouldn't have some tighter rules.
True. Though I do believe tighter rules should be enforced, but I think that people only look at the had side of guns. Take the AR-15.. all people see is. a big black gun that looks scary. They don't take the time to understand the way the gun works or what the cosmetics are and their functions. They don't take the time to realize that cars and alcohol kill more people. They don't realize there are more ways for people to be killed besides guns.
Also, obviously drug use would heighten. But there is no good use for drugs except for the ones already legalized (OTC and prescription). But there ARE other uses for guns besides shooting other people. Like I said, hunting, recreational use, and safety. Do you think that people should not be allowed to defend themselves? Do you think people should not be allowed to hunt? To trapshoot? To shoot skeet? There are two parts to every side and unfortunately people only hear what they want it what the predominantly liberal media decides to say. I am not saying that guns have not related in crimes, but I am saying that, guns or no guns, people will find a way to kill another person. It is not the only weapon.
Personally, I prefer the Heckler and Koch MR556A1 over an AR-15 any day. I'm in full support of having a gun. However, there is no reason for a 30 round magazine. Nothing more than 15 in my opinion. My joke is,"You need an upwards of 20 round magazine? Is that in case the Deer shoots back?" Gun control is a bad choice of words. It should be Gun Limits. Limit what a person can have instead of taking it away from them. Limit which guns can be carried in Public. In my eyes only handguns. Limit those who can have a gun by asking for Licenses, or background checks.
Gryffindor has phrased an opinion I agree with quite eloquently, I'll +1 to that :)
+2. One of the biggest problems of the gun debate is that people (cough cough Republicans cough cough) try to frame it in black and white. Liberals want to ban all firearms! Atheists want to take away our God-given right to bear arms! Democrats are going to follow Hitler's example and make it illegal for the public to have guns!
Gun control isn't about blanket bans. It's about using some common sense. Do you like to hunt? Go ahead and hunt! Go ahead and buy hunting weapons and hunt animals and show off your hunting trophies! But do you really need a grenade launcher or machine gun to kill a deer?
Do you want something to defend yourself with? Are you worried about burglars or muggers? Go ahead and buy a handgun! Go ahead and pack heat! But do you really need thirty or forty bullets in a magazine to stop an intruder? (If you're that lousy of a shot, you probably shouldn't have a gun in the first place.)
Do you like target shooting? Do you want to pulverize clay pigeons and cardboard cutouts? Go ahead and get a gun for fun! Go ahead and shoot reacreationally- go ahead and compete in the Olympics, for all we care! All we're saying is that if you're going to get a gun, you should know how to use it, and you shouldn't have a history of gun violence.
The gun debate is not about absolutes, and it is not designed to hurt innocent gun-loving citizens. It is not about slippery slopes or a giant secretive conspiracy to punish gun owners. It's about common sense. The conservative insistance that gun control advocates want to take all guns away is proabably the single biggest straw man in politics today.
Awwwww I feel appreciated. Thanks Imagine and Breece.
Last I checked Criminals don't follow the law, so dealers, gangs, and yes even criminals won't be fazed by gun laws. Duh. Just like they haven't been fazed by the Drug laws. Go figure.
I do not at any point want to take away a citizen's right to vote. In fact it would take an ACT of Congress(meaning unanimous decision) for the 2nd Amendament or any amendament to be stripped from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which looking at the wonderful people we have now, will never happen. Imagine made a great point. No one needs a 30+round magazine for defense.
I really don't understand what the fuss is all about. First off, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun owners don't buy semi automatics and boxes of ammo to go on killing sprees. It is their choice, and their right to own weapons, and no one can convince them otherwise. I have way more then twenty rounds on my person, I buy ammo in bulk and store it so I don't need to buy it as often, and also it's good to be prepared. I typically leave the house with up to twelve bullets, cause my revolver takes six rounds in the cylinder, and I like to keep it loaded because it saves time later, and I always know that it's loaded. (It seems like people shoot themselves more often then getting shot by other people, or at least that's what I've noticed). And it's not like I'm a bad shot, it's just that I shoot a lot. We shoot targets all day long for fun. Why are people so afraid of guns when they could just as easily be afraid of other people? Do they think that small hunk of metal is gonna come to life and strangle them? Not everyone is a serial killer, and I don't think everyone's rights should be compromised for the few that are. Have you ever fired an AR-15? It's like having the wrath of Thor shooting out from your fingertips with into a fiery inferno of power and tenacity :P But seriously, semi automatics are awesome. I fired this automatic AR-15 once that could shoot 800 rounds per minute. It was like an explosion of bullets, and entirely bad as.s. Why does everyone need to give that up for the sake of a few people living in their rose colored wonderland of safety and ignorance?
OMG! Sorla_the_Space_Cowboy, you are hilarious. I mean, seriously, "the wrath of Thor". Too funny. But I agree with everything that you said.
And @imagine...hmmm, you are a perfect example of what the politcal parties want us to do: hate/blame/dislike the other. You group the Republicans into one group and just guess what they think and try to make it sound like you know better than those silly Republicans. I could do the same thing about Democrats (cough cough they're ruining the country by taking from people who work hard and giving to people who don't deserve it cough cough). It's completely stupid to do that (I am not saying you're stupid btw). All I am saying that, in times of crisis, we should ban together and work together. Most Republicans don't want to give up any guns. Most Democrats want to ban all guns (or they will eventually do such). I am not saying it is easy, but no one is trying either. We, as young people, should show the older generation how to work together in a civilized manner.
+1 for sorla. you rock and are hilarious btw
Sorla and Capsgirl:
People use guns to kill people. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is ignoring the fact that people kill other people with guns. Fairly often.
If taking away your right to have fun with an automatic rifle is what it takes to lower the chances of murderers using automatic rifles to gun down classrooms of children, I'm all for it.
It's that simple, you have no reason to use an automatic rifle besides "how fun and cool it is".
If you really want to fire automated weapons that badly, join S.W.A.T, join the Army.
What I want is for Uncle Jed to not be allowed to fire off his AK-47 in the woods for fun.
People kill with their hands as well, should we chop them off? Fact of the matter is that no one should have the right to limit other people's freedom, just for theoretical safety. You're never safe, and restrictions on firearms won't change that. Also, limiting gun rights won't actually change anything. Give me a few hundred in cash and fifteen minutes and I'll get you a high powered rifle. Who is the government to take away our rights? We never asked for that, we never asked for their protection either. We can look after our own just fine, always have always will, and frankly laws just make it harder on us. I won't die for corporations and capitalism either. If I die for anything, it will be for people, not the military. Why do you care if uncle Jed can shoot his own gun on his own property? That's no ones business but his own. Believe it or not, people don't appreciate when others meddle and interfere. Trust me, guns aren't the problem. Its part of our culture and lifestyle, we need guns to survive. "White trash" and proud.
I agree with Sorla. If people want to kill, they will kill with anything. According to Breece's theory we should get rid of cars, water, fertilizer, planes, knifes, guns, basically anything. Oh and chop of limbs because, they too, have the ability to kill another. We do not guns for our own pleasure, but for our defense (check out the wording of 2nd Amendment). We were given the rights to bear arms to defend ourselves against the government.
Sorla and Capsgirl:
Hands don't propell through the air at 800 rounds a minute.
Knives don't either.
You two are making the huge mistake of not knowing the difference between weapons and tools that are designed to kill on a massive scale.
I think we should give commn citizens the ability to own nuclear bombs.
After all, who is the government to tell us not to manufacture WMD's? It's our constitutional right to bear arms.
I can kill a man just as easily with my hunting knife as I can with a nuclear bomb, probably even easier since it doesn't cost as much, why should we not give people nukes?
If people want to use nuclear bombs on their own property, who are we to stop them?
So what if one crazy serial killer happens to get a hold of a nuclear bomb, that's one guy out of everybody else, are you going to restrict our rights just because of that one person?
Laws against people owning nuclear weapons do nothing but stop the people from having equal power to the government.
Above is quite possibly the most painful thing I've ever had to write.
I will address your anticipated responses to it now:
"Guns aren't the same thing as nuclear bombs..."
Hands and knives aren't the same thing as guns.
"Nuclear bombs affect property that's not yours"
Guns do too, if they're unrestricted that is.
"Nuclear bombs are impractical, everyone can't have one like guns"
Doesn't change the fact that if they weren't restricted, people would make them.
"If we didn't have governments we wouldn't have nukes to begin with"
Completely baseless, no evidence.
"Then I guess we shouldn't have cars either..."
There's a good reason we have LOTS AND LOTS of RESTRICTIONS on cars, because they're deadly.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have guns, I'm not saying we shouldn't have cars, I'm saying we should restrict and limit the usage and possession of both.
You guys can't seem to get it through your head that taking away guns is not what we're advocating.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO TAKE YOUR F---ING GUNS AWAY, WE'RE MAKING LAWS THAT INSURE YOU'RE NOT A F---ING DERANGED LUNATIC SHOOTING CLASSROOMS FULL OF CHILDREN.
Phew, *wipes forehead*
rant over. I just had to get all that out. It's about to be Spring Break for me so I probably won't respond for awhile :P
The conversation was and continues to be fun and interesting, hope to talk to both of you in the future of this thread and others :D
I'm not compromising my rights for anything. I don't care if there are sick twisted individuals out there. Not everyone kills people pointlessly, why should the government have any say in what weapons we own, or limit how much ammo we can buy? Guns are not the same thing as bombs, not by a long shot. People need guns, and gun laws make it extremely difficult to purchase them legally. I can't even technically own a gun because I'm underage. Why does that make me any less responsible? I've only had to shoot two people, and I didn't kill either of them. Without my gun however, I would most likely be dead. Even if I am a lunatic, that is no reason that my rights should be taken away as long as I'm not hurting anybody. People will have guns no matter what, it's a pretty simple technology, and the more restrictions put on guns, the less law abiding civilians will have guns, and then criminals will outgun the rest of us. The government has no right to just step in and interfere for our "safety". We never asked for it, and we don't need it. School shootings are tragic, true, but are caused by our superficial, capitalist society, not by guns. Why should law abiding citizens have to suffer for whack jobs that like to shoot people? Nothing the government does will ever make a difference, unless they adopt some crazy fascist communism, and in that case, I might as well just shoot everything that moves, because I shall have lost faith in humanity. People just don't understand. I will gladly give up whatever sense of safety people get by gun restrictions so the rest of us can freely purchase guns. Just think, if guns were more accepted in our society, and someone at Sandy Hook carried a firearm, countless lives could've been saved. You can't win, so you might as well just get a gun.