Gun Control

[skeptik]

The places with the harshest gun control policies also tend to be the areas in which there would most likely be gun violence. That's not a very powerful claim.

 

[Never78]

Will always be outnumbered on this issue; but whatever. Guns give me the ability to defend not only myself, but others. If we lived a world of swords, I would carry a sword, but this is simply not the case.

Guns are comparatively safe considering one must load the cartridges, insert the magazine, release the safety, pull the charge handle, aim, fire, actually hit something, and that something must be a person. This cannot happen by accident, only by negligence, which happens all the time with countless other items you never hear about because they are not part of the anti-gun agenda.

In the case of crime, well it seems we either disarm everyone or arm most. Both are pretty impossible, so I stand on the side of individual rights. We do not live in a perfect world. People will die; always. I would rather defend those I can than cross my fingers and try to make the world nonviolent.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Fuck off.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Did that post upset you V5?

 

[The Ozzman]

I loved it.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Will always be outnumbered on this issue; but whatever. Guns give me the ability to defend not only myself, but others. If we lived a world of swords, I would carry a sword, but this is simply not the case.

Guns are comparatively safe considering one must load the cartridges, insert the magazine, release the safety, pull the charge handle, aim, fire, actually hit something, and that something must be a person. This cannot happen by accident, only by negligence, which happens all the time with countless other items you never hear about because they are not part of the anti-gun agenda.

In the case of crime, well it seems we either disarm everyone or arm most. Both are pretty impossible, so I stand on the side of individual rights. We do not live in a perfect world. People will die; always. I would rather defend those I can than cross my fingers and try to make the world nonviolent.

How many people have you defended with your gun so far?

 

[Einherjar86]

The 2nd amendment is outdated anyway, there really needs to be a revision to the rule. There is no need to own a gun. Use a bow and arrow for fucks sake if you hunt, that actually gives the animal a chance anyway.

is need and right the same thing?

Great point.

I'll restate my claim. There is a very logical reason why people should be allowed to own guns. If they're made illegal, only the currently legal ones will be traced and confiscated. All the illegal ones will still be on the streets. Law-abiding citizens will have no way to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with hunting, in my opinion. People have the right to own firearms.

 

[The Ozzman]

The ATF won't be able to trace every gun ever sold. It's impossible at this point.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then why are they even bothering?

But still, the point is that law-abiding citizens will be the ones who turn in their guns. And if they don't, then we make criminals out of good people. It's just a pointless effort, in my opinion. The gun laws don't need to be radically changed. We could make more restrictions and make it slightly more difficult to obtain a firearm; but people shouldn't be disallowed to purchase them.

 

[Never78]

How many people have you defended with your gun so far?

Only myself once. Not really a life-threatening situation but a (rather pathetic) attempted robbery. I don't go looking for trouble. In fact I hardly ever even go to town.

If you are suggesting that one should see someone get murdered before they buy a gun I would have to disagree. My apologies if you were just asking an innocent question.

 

[The Ozzman]

Then why are they even bothering?

But still, the point is that law-abiding citizens will be the ones who turn in their guns. And if they don't, then we make criminals out of good people. It's just a pointless effort, in my opinion. The gun laws don't need to be radically changed. We could make more restrictions and make it slightly more difficult to obtain a firearm; but people shouldn't be disallowed to purchase them.

Well, say someone sells a gun to someone else and then they give the gun to someone else as a gift and then the other two people die. There's no way to know where the fuck the gun is if no one is informed about it and I don't think anyone is going out of their way to tell the ATF that someone gave them a gun as a gift.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Will always be outnumbered on this issue; but whatever. Guns give me the ability to defend not only myself, but others. If we lived a world of swords, I would carry a sword, but this is simply not the case.

Guns are comparatively safe considering one must load the cartridges, insert the magazine, release the safety, pull the charge handle, aim, fire, actually hit something, and that something must be a person. This cannot happen by accident, only by negligence, which happens all the time with countless other items you never hear about because they are not part of the anti-gun agenda.

In the case of crime, well it seems we either disarm everyone or arm most. Both are pretty impossible, so I stand on the side of individual rights. We do not live in a perfect world. People will die; always. I would rather defend those I can than cross my fingers and try to make the world nonviolent.

Fuck off.

well V5, he does have a valid point meaning, there's a clear difference between accidents and negligence. also, i lost my best friend when i was 13 because him and his friend thought it would be funny to play with guns and the one kid shot my best friend. it sucks but, just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean that law abiding citizens should lose their right to bear arms

 

[The Ozzman]

The 2nd amendment is outdated anyway, there really needs to be a revision to the rule. There is no need to own a gun. Use a bow and arrow for fucks sake if you hunt, that actually gives the animal a chance anyway.

Just like how no one NEEDS to own a guitar, right? or that no one NEEDS to own a 54" plasma screen TV, right?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Fail. Guitars and plasma TVs aren't used to kill people.

Unless you're El Kabong.

 

[waif]

The places with the harshest gun control policies also tend to be the areas in which there would most likely be gun violence. That's not a very powerful claim.

The UK and the United States share a common origin as to the right to bear arms, which is the 1689 Bill of Rights.[9] However, over the course of the 20th century, the UK gradually implemented tighter regulation of the civilian ownership of firearms through the enactment of the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms(Amendment) Acts[10] leading to the current outright ban on the ownership of all automatic, and most self loading, firearms in the UK. The ownership of breach-loading handguns is, in particular, also very tightly controlled and effectively limited (other than in Northern Ireland)[citation needed] to those persons who may require such a handgun for the non routine humane killing of injured or dangerous animals. Each firearm owned must be registered on a Firearms Certificate (FAC) which is issued by the local police authority who will require the prospective owner to demonstrate a "good reason" for each firearm held (e.g. pest control or target shooting) and may place restrictions on the FAC relating to the type and amount of ammunition that is held and the places and the uses the firearms are put to.[11] Self defence is not considered an acceptable "good reason" for firearm ownership. The police may amend, or revoke, a FAC at any time and refuse a FAC for any reason.

This was in response to the one and only school shooting Britain ever had afaik. Someone killed some kids and teachers with guns. So they took the fucking guns away.
Let's see how they're doing:

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[19] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[20] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[21]
By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2004, of which 66% involved the use of firearms.[22] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[23] It is worth noting that New York City has some of the strictest gun control laws in the whole of the US, with firearms possession being illegal without appropriate license, similar to the UK.

So, in case I'm not clear here, TAKING THE GUNS AWAY REDUCES THE FUCKING CRIME.

Great point.

I'll restate my claim. There is a very logical reason why people should be allowed to own guns. If they're made illegal, only the currently legal ones will be traced and confiscated. All the illegal ones will still be on the streets. Law-abiding citizens will have no way to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with hunting, in my opinion. People have the right to own firearms.

When is someone going to defend themselves with a handgun?
They shouldn't be carrying it around town in case they get mugged, that's fucking insanity. If you were arguing that private citizens should be allowed to have a shotgun in their house and/or a hunting rifle I might agree with you. But I still think it's really moronic to buy a weapon for defense, considering that you or someone you love is far more likely to die by that weapon. I would recommend investing that money in a lock and a baseball bat.

Just like how no one NEEDS to own a guitar, right? or that no one NEEDS to own a 54" plasma screen TV, right?

Guitars and plasma screens don't have the potential to create a massacre.

 

[The Ozzman]

Guitars and plasma screens don't have the potential to create a massacre.

They have the potential if guns are outlawed LDO

 

[Matt]

They have the potential if guns are outlawed LDO

Stop making up stupid bullshit.

 

[Einherjar86]

When is someone going to defend themselves with a handgun?
They shouldn't be carrying it around town in case they get mugged, that's fucking insanity.

Why???

I don't understand this at all. If a mugger comes up to you and threatens you with a knife (which happens often), he or she is much more likely to fucking run if you pull a gun on them. Problem solved. Why the fuck shouldn't people carry a gun around to defend themselves? I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense to me.

 

[The Ozzman]

Stop making up stupid bullshit.

Okay, I'll just use my computer monitor then

 

[waif]

I'd like to remind you of something a poster named S.U.A.D. once said. It went something like this (he was trying to argue for guns, too) "There have been situations I've been in where if I'd had a gun there would have been one dead motherfucker" or something. If you read Fist Stick Knife Gun by that dude who wrote it (can't remember) he describes carrying a gun around the Bronx for protection. He ultimately threw it away because he realized that if he kept carrying it eventually he'd use it.

In case you don't see what I'm saying, I'd rather have people getting their wallets stolen than people getting shot. Not just muggers, either. People do irrational stuff and while most people would be responsible, some guy might go flying off the handle and cap someone for cutting him off.

EDIT: ITT Ozz is a fucking retard