Though I'm what many would consider a bleeding heart liberal, I do not believe in increased gun control. With so many shootings happening, its easy to say that if we eliminate guns we eliminate killings, and I know that's the argument some will make, but what do we do about the people that commit these terrible acts? Are we so naive to think that simply banning firearms will somehow make all the violent people stay home, stumped that they can't figure out a way to carry out their intentions? Do we ban all firearms or just the ones with scary names like "assault" and "automatic"? Is there something to be done to eliminate our violent tendencies, or is it strictly fun control that solves the problem?
Gun control
- Thread starter balsary
- Start date
Here is a Wikipedia link to current US gun laws, though I'm not certain it's all inclusive. If you are for increased gun control, point to specific areas where you think the laws could be improved. Simply stating that we need more gun control means nothing really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
I was watching Iron Man 2 earlier today, and the senate hearing at the very beginning is exactly what is going on here. The benefits of private gun ownership outweigh the liabilities.
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?
Low end of 108,000 to a high of 1.5 million.
Low end of 108,000 to a high of 1.5 million.
1. I dont get the connection of gun and fun.
2. Yes, no weapons means less victims
3. You have to desite between "every day violence" and sutch things like the current event
So, ask yourself. What has more value for you, the right to own and carry a gun where ever you want OR a human live?
There are defenetly some social reasons for "everyday violence" your sociaty should work on. It would defenetly help more then any gun law.
But this would mean social care, free health care and similar stuff - probably again nothing for sutch liberals as you
But to prevent mass murder with suicide is nearly impossible by social acts. Its to complex by to less happening. In this case, just a good gun law works
1. I dont get the connection of gun and fun.
2. Yes, no weapons means less victims
3. You have to desite between "every day violence" and sutch things like the current event
So, ask yourself. What has more value for you, the right to own and carry a gun where ever you want OR a human live?
There are defenetly some social reasons for "everyday violence" your sociaty should work on. It would defenetly help more then any gun law.
But this would mean social care, free health care and similar stuff - probably again nothing for sutch liberals as you
But to prevent mass murder with suicide is nearly impossible by social acts. Its to complex by to less happening. In this case, just a good gun law works
Not sure I understand your post. I'm all for social care, reduced healthcare costs (nothing is free), and most likely, similar stuff though I'm not sure what that is.
You say no weapons means less victims. Are you pushing for the banning of more than guns, or is that it? Also, stricter gun laws, or the complete banning of guns?
When I ask myself which has more value, the right to own and carry a gun anywhere I want, or a human life, I'm asking a hypothetical question. Did you look at the wiki link I posted? You realize that not everyone can own, and there are several places where one can't carry?
bias... Sorry
No weapons means less victims - the effectivity depents on the law
If you just bann rifles, i doubt that the number of victims will change mutch
If you just bann the carrying, it also wount change mutch
Bann all guns and you will notice a big change in the number of victims. At least at sutch events as the current one
To bann all weapons would be stupid, cause everything could be a weapon.
Yes i know that different state means different gun laws...
But differences like "to carry or not to carry" arent really differences.
And not to carry wount prevent anything. If i own a gun and desite to kill, a law against public gun carry would be my last worry...
As it looks like, one reason for the current event was the mother of the attacker. How do you want to prevent it, if not by a bann on guns?
Last edited:
Penis Aficionado
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Posts
- 2,949
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,196
- Points
- 198
- Location
- Austin (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Why should banning guns work any better than banning marijuana? Weed is totally illegal in my state, medicinally, recreationally or otherwise. But I could go get some within an hour if I wanted.
In germany drugs are as illegal as in the usa... Within 20 min. i could get every "soft" drug. But to get a gun, i would need probably month (cause i have no clue where to get one) and would cost a little fortune...
Why should it be different in the usa?
Penis Aficionado
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Posts
- 2,949
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,196
- Points
- 198
- Location
- Austin (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Because in the USA there's already millions of guns floating around in private hands (not sure whether this is the case in Germany).
And if laws make it impossible to buy guns in stores, then people will start selling some of those millions of guns in the same places where they currently sell marijuana.
And if laws make it impossible to buy guns in stores, then people will start selling some of those millions of guns in the same places where they currently sell marijuana.
I agree that banning all weapons would be stupid. As you said yourself, everything could be a weapon. So once all the guns are gone, does that remove the will and desire to commit violent acts? There will just be a new weapon of choice for criminals, that is, if you manage to get ALL of the guns out of circulation (an impossible task in my opinion).
I'm not sure how to prevent these type of cases. I'd like to think that there were some sort of indication that there was something wrong with this young man, but who knows, it's much too early to say.
Are you aware of the Oklahoma City bombing? In 1995 one man with minimal help from others (arguably the entire thing could have been accomplished by one person) was able to build a bomb big enough to kill 168 people, injure more than 680 other people, destroy or damage 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroy or burn 86 cars, and shatter glass in 258 nearby buildings all while causing over $652 million worth of damage.
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now, if I had my way, Timothy McVeigh would have never been born, and the OKC bombing would have never happened. If forced to choose between an incident like OKC happening or one similar to the event that happened today, I choose today's tragedy every time. I believe that banning all guns would cause more incidents like OKC. If we were somehow able to ask casualties of The OKC bombing and the incident that happened today, I'm sure that none would care how they were killed, but that they were killed.
Are you aware of what happened when the US tried to ban alcohol? Not only did it cause many Americans to illegally get their alcohol (prohibition does nothing to eliminate desire), but it funded several criminal organizations. Again, I believe that banning all guns in the US would simply cause people to get them illegally. Who would profit from that and what would be the implications? Drifterwood would have you think that since banning all firearms works for his country that it will work for all. To that I again refer to alcohol. There are several countries around the world that have banned alcohol and it works for them. It didn't for us.
Oh yeah, even though Timothy McVeigh owned and carried a gun, he never once used it from what I can tell.
Last edited:
- citr,
I'm liberal as hell, but not for gun control.
They're just weapons. I think it's generally a good idea to arm oneself. If we were pre-gun I would look into owning a sweet sword, or whatever.
Plus, for those that don't live in urban areas, owning a gun can simply be practical when dealing w/ wild animals. Or even in urban areas, I think it'd make sense to own one in case of rabid or vicious dogs. I love dogs and all, but I've seen firsthand how horrible some owners are to their pitbulls and such. I would much rather be prepared to kill the damned thing than have no way to kill it quickly if it were attacking someone in my family, for example.
They're just weapons. I think it's generally a good idea to arm oneself. If we were pre-gun I would look into owning a sweet sword, or whatever.
Plus, for those that don't live in urban areas, owning a gun can simply be practical when dealing w/ wild animals. Or even in urban areas, I think it'd make sense to own one in case of rabid or vicious dogs. I love dogs and all, but I've seen firsthand how horrible some owners are to their pitbulls and such. I would much rather be prepared to kill the damned thing than have no way to kill it quickly if it were attacking someone in my family, for example.
and thats the point... If you cant name similar indications at those events, the best way could be to make it as difficult as possible to get a gun
Yes i know about oklahoma... And as i said, to bann guns wouldnt safe all victims.
You cant prevent everything but if you can you should do it - and again the question. How many lifes is it worth that you can own/carry a gun?
Last edited:
1. To bann guns means to own them is illegal. The state would have to care and collect
2. They woul sell guns at the same place as marijuana, cause? - those who smoke also need guns?
own a sword... No problem. Every american can if he wants.
And cause your aware of the dog in the city you carry all the time a gun with you? - very plausible
If you are as often in the wilderness as it sounds you should know how to behave, that you wount get attacked...
And again its not very plausible that you will get attacked. Just a few animals would attack a human and they are quite rare
Last edited:
Similar threads
