i dont think there should be any more restrictions. if someone really wants to kill someone, theyre not gonna be like " well i would, but im not aloud to have a gun. i guess ill just use a knife"
I'm completely lost. What?
that wasnt supposed to be posted but oh well. i mean, i dont think there should be anymore restrictions on who can have what guns
I stand to my belief which is,"I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendament and all its proceeds. However, the common people should not have the same weaponry as our military or law enforcement officers use." There always should be a fine line there.
yep. i agree
You've just agreed to two contradictory statements. First you said there should be no more restrictions regarding firearms. Then you agreed with what Gryffindor said. Which is it?
right now, citizens dont have access to many of the guns the military does. it should stay that way. i dont think there should be any MORE restrictios than there already is
So if you were to realize that's not the case, would you vouch for more restrictions?
probably. it depends on what citizens had access to n how easy that access was gained
Citizens have access to any weapon they want. It is getting it and keeping it that is the hard part. It is always fun to see on the news,"Home Raided: Stockpile of Weapons: RPGs and LMGs, and then everyone gets scared about how people got them so easily.
So you`re meaning restrictions as in gunlaws right? Cause if you are I totally feel ya. Honesetly more people die from getting stabbed or hit with tire irons or by drunk/drowsy/distracted drivers. I mean yeah I don`t think the average person should be able to go out and get a bazooka or a grenade launcher (although how fun would that be?!?) But they seriously need to stop thinking that because they make a law against guns that the violence is gonna stop.
"Honesetly more people die from getting stabbed or hit with tire irons"
No, you're wrong, and there are statistics to show for it. Seriously, a five minute google search, at most, is all it would have taken you to figure this out.
"or by drunk/drowsy/distracted drivers."
Out of the list of guns and cars, exactly one of those two is actually necessary, and exactly one of them is useful in every day life. I'll leave it up to you to guess which that is.
"I mean yeah I don`t think the average person should be able to go out and get a bazooka or a grenade launcher"
Or an assault rifle or a machine gun or an automatic pistol.
"But they seriously need to stop thinking that because they make a law against guns that the violence is gonna stop."
ht tps://yourlogicalfallacyis.co m/strawman
Literally nobody is saying that all crime/violence is going to stop if (I'd like to be able to say "when") decent gun regulation is put in place. It will, however, significantly decrease.
"a five minute google search"
if i wanted ONLY bias "facts" then yes i would only search for statistics on google
"only one of those two is actually necessary"
false: i live in wild country where a gun is necessary outside of the comfort of your yard, and sometimes even then its needed. there are snakes everywhere and once in a while we`re even "lucky" enough to have mountain lions roaming around. also, since we have cattle there are coyotes constantly.
okay yes a machine gun is unnecessary in everyday life, and i will admit that an assault rifle is a bit of a stretch. but i actually own an assault rifle, and well, said by a country girl: they`re fun. okay yes that makes me sound either scary, stupid, irresponsible, or all three but it`s true.
just out of curiosity do you live in a big city?
"if i wanted ONLY bias "facts" then yes i would only search for statistics on google"
I'll be honest with you. This is stupid beyond measure. Let me get this straight: you're claiming that all statistics that have ever been recorded are too highly biased to submit as evidence? And you're using that to justify claiming something with no supporting evidence that clearly isn't true?
"there are snakes everywhere and once in a while we`re even "lucky" enough to have mountain lions roaming around. also, since we have cattle there are coyotes constantly."
Please explain why you would need an assault rifle or any other military-grade weapon to deal with these problems.
"but i actually own an assault rifle, and well, said by a country girl: they`re fun."
So are a lot of dangerous things that will tend to kill you and the people around you. Something being "fun" is not automatic justification of its use, especially if said thing happens to be designed specifically for efficient murder.
"just out of curiosity do you live in a big city?"
Pro tip: don't say "just out of curiosity" when anyone can see the question you're asking is clearly not out of curiosity.
Oy, you like to take things out of context and you like to argue everything.
Firstly: yes I WAS just curious. I wanted to know if you were from a city and that`s why you didn`t think that maybe some people do need a gun every day. I honestly don`t see how that can be anything but curiosity... actually scratch that it just occured to me that some people are jerks and might use that somehow to be rude.
Secondly: I never said I need an assault rifle for snakes or coyotes, I`m sorry if that confused you. What I meant was that out here BOTH guns and cars are important in every day life.
Yes I know that assault rifle are dangerous and a lot of fun things are dangerous. (do you think i live under a rock?) But if you`re raised around guns, and are taught to be safe with them you can actually have fun wiht things that might be dangerous if you don`t know how to handle them.
Lastly as to the "google" comment: Most people search on google and get the most viewed, or popular, or highlighted articles on the first page and then leave any other articles alone because they don`t see it on that first page. Most of those articles are bias one way or the other and then you don`t get all the information, unless you`re smart enough to view things from all angles and keep searching.
no it wont, if someone wants to kill people, thy dont care about what kind of gun theyre ALOUD to use.
okay army chick.
I am a serious government guy, where i fail in almost every other area, i make up for here.
one- you cant legalize everything, rules guide the ship of freedom.
two- it does matter who gets what gun-
meaning a ped-o-file cant ( in the state of texas )buy a brand new pistol.
and in that perspective, i can see where your coming from - tell me if i get this right.
- we should be able to have any weapon no matter who we are because we are free and need to stop the government from taking away that freedom-
we gave the government waaaay to much power so thats our own foult.
two- the we ( the people) made these rules for a reason.
if everyone has a certain range of weapons avalable to them, the playing field for self defence is equal ( in theory, though not alwase true)
and the military has better weapons so they can stop riots and such, fight wars etc.
and the military is controlled by the people.
not to say they dont have orders from up top, but they are citizens as we are.
i hope this is coming out right.
to make sure you get where i stand:
I think that a certain amount and kind of weapon should be avaluble to every citizen who is not a ped-o-file, murderer etc
but i think i dont want my naughbor to have a rocket launcher when i have knife iether.
so when i run for representative this is a concern that i will deal with a lot.
any reason why you think that the people should get whatever kind of weapon they want?
please, explain why?
Okay, I'll be blunt here. The differences between cars and guns are as follows:
1. Cars are far more useful for the vast majority of people in the U.S.
2. Cars are not specifically designed to kill, whereas guns are.
3. There is heavy regulation on cars. Manufacturers and retailers are well regulated to make sure the products they are selling are safe. There are very specific laws on where and how they can and cannot be used. You have to fit certain safety criteria (age, eyesight etc.) to take a test to get a license to be able to even use one at all, and even then you have to prove yourself a worthy and safe driver before you're able to use it without extra restrictions. Nobody in their right mind is currently arguing against these restrictions. On the other hand, guns are less useful, more dangerous, have fewer restrictions, have little regulation, and there is a massive organization devoted to lobbying against their being reasonably regulated.
If you want to compare guns and cars, go ahead, but don't complain about gun regulation, because that would be contrary to your own viewpoint.
Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think you could kill more people with a high-caliber assault rifle or with a .45 semi-auto pistol?