Gun Control anyone?

[UncleTestes]

So.
Obama.
Guns.
Rights.
Yeah.
Obama says he doesn't support having armed guards around our children, when someone shouts something along these lines:
"Well your daughters are surrounded by armed guards!"
He immediately goes on the defensive and says it has nothing to do with his daughters.
Herp.

[Arty_pn]

The thing is that Obama children have those guards because the children are well known for having a presidential father. What if country x kidnaps them as hostage?
Most public schools already have guards, just unarmed. I wonder if the school guards could get a tranquilizer gun; death does not punish those who want to die.
Lastly if a real criminal wanted to kill a school, why not bomb it... Guns are not are only worry here, people find a way, I just want to stop homicidal people from have access to weapons.
(why not use failhorse's thread btw)

[Rologton]

I'm going to say this and then leave because I'm not in the mood to get in some pissing match with the latest enlightened hyper political who's never wrong on any issue.

My fucking state has just proved how knee-jerk and reactionary this bullshit it. Good job New York, railroading such a shoddy, poorly written law through Albany so fast that they failed to realize that they forgot to include an exception to military and law enforcement personnel. That's right, as of right now in New York State, every police officer with more than 7 rounds in any magazine or soldier holding his M-4 as he's training in preparation for deployment is currently a criminal.

Good. Fucking. Job. I hope your 15 minutes of barely getting noticed was worth it Cuomo. This is what happens when you jump on the latest reactionary bullshit, you get sudden, knee jerk legislation that's poorly written and isn't even read and solves NOTHING.

[Failhorse]

So.
Obama.
Guns.
Rights.
Yeah.
Obama says he doesn't support having armed guards around our children, when someone shouts something along these lines:
"Well your daughters are surrounded by armed guards!"
He immediately goes on the defensive and says it has nothing to do with his daughters.
Herp.

Seriously?
FYI Columbine had armed guards. See how well that worked out.

[Maringue]

Also, Obama doesn't get to decide if his kids have armed guards. It's called National Security. And dragging anything a politicians kids do into the picture is bullshit.

Funny how even a small part of the solution to gun violence can never, never ever include reasonable restrictions on guns. It's always everything else's fault, but never the fault of the thing that did the killing, the gun.

Oh, and the NRA wants to have the government keep lists of all the potentially mentally unstable people in the country. But make a law saying guns dealers have to account for the whereabouts of the guns in their inventory? HOLY JESUS THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOU!!!!! PREPARE FOR WAR!!!!

Look it up, a gun dealer can "lose" any amount of inventory and no one knows about it, no crimes broken. Who does this benefit other than criminals who get their guns from dealers who "lost" some guns in transit?

[Maringue]

Oh, and I was having a very rational debate with some other people. We agreed that background checks for all gun purchases and stricter laws on gun trafficing were common sense proposals that a majority of people could get behind.

In comes one of his friends. Now he's talking about banning cars because cars kill people too. Mind you, no one ever even discussed the assault weapon ban, just the two things above. So when I explained that a car's primary purpose for being built was not to kill, where a gun's purpose is to kill. He responded with this:

"Guns are designed for hunting and self defense, not killing."

Really dude, what happens when you go hunting? Do you fucking ask the deer to lay down and kill itself so you can butcher and eat his body? When I go hunting, I know I'm killing something, otherwise I think you disrespect the animal by making euphemisms out of its sacrifice.

But this is why we can't have a rational debate about this shit. Guns don't kill people, every single other part of our society causes people to use guns to kill people. The NRA loves the climate where we can't even discuss reasonable restrictions on a Constitutional Right, none of which are unlimited as the NRA would have you believe of only the 2nd Amendment.

[UncleTestes]

I lub yooh guies.
I'll just weigh in on this once. Maybe twice.
I like to shoot. I'm a good shot. I've shot everything from .22 handguns to .50 Barrets.
No one's going into a school carrying a semi-auto sniper. Too heavy. Rugers don't do much damage.
The point is: If someone wants to kill, they'll find a way. If they have to make a dozen little pipe bombs and toss 'em everywhere, they'll do it.
I'll throw in a few fun facts to make some more points.
Did you know that Switzerland does not have a separate army? Instead, the population serves as their army. The Swiss Army issues every household a Sig-Sauer handgun and every man ages 20-30 recieves firearm training. Heres a cute little chart.
Country / 2012 Population / Gun Murders / Ratio
US / 313 Million / 9146 / 34223
Switzerland / 8 million / 57 / 140351
Divide 313 Mil by 39.125 to make it even with Switzerland's 8 mill. Divide US Shootings by 39.125 and you get about 234.
That makes US Gun Homocides to Swiss Gun Homocides 13/3, or 4.3/1. The US would've had over 4 times as many gun murders as Switzerland.
And everyone there owns a gun. Wonder why?
Also, I'll note that I'm not trying to start any bullcrap. Just curious about you guies' sides.

[Spyder]

Not like the Government gives a shit about public opinion anyway.

[Alchemist]

Seriously?
FYI Columbine had armed guards. See how well that worked out.

Seriously?
FYI Chicago had a gun ban. See how well that worked out.

See I can do it too.

[Maringue]

Did you know that Switzerland does not have a separate army? Instead, the population serves as their army. The Swiss Army issues every household a Sig-Sauer handgun and every man ages 20-30 recieves firearm training

This is a common myth put around by anti-gun control people, but it's confusing because they do not accurately describe what happens. The Swiss have compulsory military service, much like Israel and S. Korea. The difference is that conscripted members of the army are required to store their personal service weapons in their homes.

This is a long, long way from issuing ever male in the country a gun and it's a clear use of misrepresentation of the facts to get to their political end.

"Seriously?
FYI Chicago had a gun ban. See how well that worked out."

And as for this? 99.9% of the guns used in Chicago do not come from Chicago (also, they don't have a gun ban, that's unconstitutional AND it's not an option being discussed). In fact, there are people who make very, very good money buying guns legally in Indiana, driving across the boarder and selling them to people who would have never passed a background check in Chicago.

So trying to say that gun control doesn't work because Chicago has a high murder rate and lots of gun control is a bullshit argument. They just get their guns from adjacent areas where gun control is lax.

Since someone will inevitably bring up Mexico (like Jan Brewer, gov of AZ), which has very strict gun control and a high violence rate. Oh, but what Jan Brewer doesn't want to tell you is that 2000 guns PER DAY are trafficed from her state of AZ into Mexico.

So yeah, gun control only works if the assholes next to you aren't giving away guns like candy to anyone with a pulse and legally allowing them to resell those guns without background checks to anyone they choose. Like Mexican drug cartels. Or gang members in Chicago.

[Alchemist]

And as for this? 99.9% of the guns used in Chicago do not come from Chicago (also, they don't have a gun ban, that's unconstitutional AND it's not an option being discussed). In fact, there are people who make very, very good money buying guns legally in Indiana, driving across the boarder and selling them to people who would have never passed a background check in Chicago.

So trying to say that gun control doesn't work because Chicago has a high murder rate and lots of gun control is a bullshit argument. They just get their guns from adjacent areas where gun control is lax.

Since someone will inevitably bring up Mexico (like Jan Brewer, gov of AZ), which has very strict gun control and a high violence rate. Oh, but what Jan Brewer doesn't want to tell you is that 2000 guns PER DAY are trafficed from her state of AZ into Mexico.

So yeah, gun control only works if the assholes next to you aren't giving away guns like candy to anyone with a pulse and legally allowing them to resell those guns without background checks to anyone they choose. Like Mexican drug cartels. Or gang members in Chicago.

So you're saying in order to have affective gun control we need to not have lax laws about guns anywhere otherwise people will import them on the cheap from elsewhere? Thats a pretty great idea, except people will always be able to import guns from somewhere. I think your ideas are pretty idealistic.

It's impossible to disable everyone from having firearms, so you're only doing a disservice to law abiders by banning guns, and you're helping to enable people that would have otherwise gotten ahold of a firearm in the first place. So its only obvious that the safest course of action is for anyone and everyone who wishes to be able to obtain a firearm to have one.

Its similar to countries with nuclear weapons, the only reason we haven't attacked Russia, and Russia hasn't attacked us is because we both have our fingers on the trigger. Any other ideas of how to run the world is a foolish dream.

[Maringue]

So you're saying in order to have affective gun control we need to not have lax laws about guns anywhere otherwise people will import them on the cheap from elsewhere? Thats a pretty great idea, except people will always be able to import guns from somewhere. I think your ideas are pretty idealistic.

No, I'm saying that if your direct neighbor makes it super easy to buy guns AND you have an open boarder (such as those between states), then people will travel the short distance across that boarder to get what they want, especially when trafficing those guns across state lines is completely legal.

It's impossible to disable everyone from having firearms, so you're only doing a disservice to law abiders by banning guns, and you're helping to enable people that would have otherwise gotten ahold of a firearm in the first place.

Old bullshit argument is still bullshit, especially since NO ONE is talking about stopping law abiding citizens from getting a gun. By this logic, that criminals don't follow laws, we shouldn't have any laws because criminals won't obey them. Thou Shalt Not Kill? I'm betting criminals will find some way around that. What we can do is make laws that make acquiring an illegal gun becomes harder and harder. This is evident by the fact that guns used in Chicago and NYC don't come from those cities. That means criminals have to expend extra effort to get what they want. Unfortunately that extra effort currently only involves driving less than 100 miles to a different state. Criminals don't obey the law, but even they have to obey the laws of economics. If we make it harder and more expensive to get guns illegally, fewer criminals will get guns. It's not rocket science.

Example: if Cocaine was legal, it would probably cost about 5% of what it does now (it's really not hard to make at all) and more people would do it. But since it's illegal, it costs a shitload more and so fewer people do it due to economic constraints. Guns shouldn't be made illegal, but it's not hard to create a law that drives up the price for black market guns.

So its only obvious that the safest course of action is for anyone and everyone who wishes to be able to obtain a firearm to have one.

You do realize that "anyone" includes criminals and the mentally ill. Society has already decided that certain people shouldn't have guns. What is being discussed is best method (or methods) to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Its similar to countries with nuclear weapons, the only reason we haven't attacked Russia, and Russia hasn't attacked us is because we both have our fingers on the trigger. Any other ideas of how to run the world is a foolish dream.

Sweet, so living under constant threat of mutually assured destruction is the only way to live. Have fun living somewhere where at any time anyone could get mad at you and kill you (because everyone has guns) at any time so you have to be constantly ready to kill everyone around you if need be. The vast majority of society doesn't want to live there with you.

Also, we haven't attacked Russia with nukes because there's no fucking benefit to doing so. Russia also has no vested interest in nuking us either. Deterrence only adjusts the cost/benefit analysis of an action, it is not the sole driver.

[UncleTestes]

This is a common myth put around by anti-gun control people, but it's confusing because they do not accurately describe what happens. The Swiss have compulsory military service, much like Israel and S. Korea. The difference is that conscripted members of the army are required to store their personal service weapons in their homes.

I didn't get that from the news, or any politician. I did research~

I didn't mean to make this as heated as it got, you guys.
I realize that doesn't help much, it's just that I like to shoot and I wanted to get some opinions from my nerd friends, especially because a lot of you guys live above the Mason-Dixon, and I live in the heart of Mississippi. No one at my school is crazy enough to try a school shooting, though, because half the pickup trucks in the parking lots have a shotgun in the back and half the pockets of any guy wearing pants have pocket knives in them. But I lived in a Chicago suburb for a year, and I wish I'd asked around about the gun laws while I lived there.
But hell, fireworks are illegal in the city I lived in, so I guess I didn't need to.

[check six]

testes stop being a shitposter and bumping 2-month old threads

[Drawed]

testes stop being a shitposter and bumping 2-month old threads

For once, I agree with Saber.

[Balubish]

I think your gun rules in US are insane. Im not sure but it seems easy as hell to own "get" a weapon over there is that right?
Couple years ago I was wondering what It would cost to own a weapon and go to the gun range to shoot at stuff would cost as a hobby. Well I didnt do It.
First I needed to be a member of a shooting club for 5 years, also contact the police that I own a gun or a rifle and give them serialnr on all the weapons etc.
And must still continue to be In a club and shot several times a year to be able to keep owning it, otherwise u are forced to sell it.
I also need a expensive safe for the guns/rifles with the right safety class to legally have It at home. I dont know how the rules are over there but. Otherwise only ppl that are allowed here are the police sweden and hunters and mafia.
And well Mafia in sweden are like a fart in space like other countries. But there are some illegal weapons.

I don't think US can set that kind of rule over there am I right? For example US government sweep all ppl of there weapons and set a boring as hell rule system as we have and well It a so long process that like didnt care anymore and didnt get a gun in the first place. Also saved me alot of money for safe, gun/rifle.

[Someone Special]

None. We have the right to bear arms, and that should not be infringed or restricted in my opinion.

[Thret]

I think your gun rules in US are insane. Im not sure but it seems easy as hell to own "get" a weapon over there is that right?
Couple years ago I was wondering what It would cost to own a weapon and go to the gun range to shoot at stuff would cost as a hobby. Well I didnt do It.
First I needed to be a member of a shooting club for 5 years, also contact the police that I own a gun or a rifle and give them serialnr on all the weapons etc.
And must still continue to be In a club and shot several times a year to be able to keep owning it, otherwise u are forced to sell it.
I also need a expensive safe for the guns/rifles with the right safety class to legally have It at home. I dont know how the rules are over there but. Otherwise only ppl that are allowed here are the police sweden and hunters and mafia.
And well Mafia in sweden are like a fart in space like other countries. But there are some illegal weapons.

I don't think US can set that kind of rule over there am I right? For example US government sweep all ppl of there weapons and set a boring as hell rule system as we have and well It a so long process that like didnt care anymore and didnt get a gun in the first place. Also saved me alot of money for safe, gun/rifle.

I'm not sure about other states but in my part of Nebraska (One of the more republican states and one with fairly lax gun laws as far as I know) in order to obtain a firearm (Legally mind you.) someone must be at least 21 years of age, must submit an application for a permit to the local sheriff, and register the firearm upon purchase. You are correct Balubish about gun bans; The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states that every U.S. citizen has the right to bear arms.

In all honesty, I think that felons should not be allowed to buy firearms period (Currently they can purchase rifles as hunting equipment) and that a psychological profile and a firearm safety course should be required to purchase a gun. Those in addition to the three I listed above should be the only gun control laws in my opinion. As far as I've seen, the two most common factors among most of these gun violence problems is extreme poverty and mental illness. I believe if both of those issues were directly addressed then gun violence crimes would decrease by a large amount.

[cloud]

I am 17 years old. I own a pistol. My dad bought it for me.
It shows that he believes I am trustworthy enough to own a gun, but see how easy that was?
He buys the gun, has HIS background checked, and gives it to me.
Now, I am an advocate of gun rights, but I certainly think that getting a gun shouldn't be as simple as receiving it as a gift.

btw I'm 18 next month, so its not that big a deal that a 17 year old owns a gun, mk?

[GoDM1N]

As far as I've seen, the two most common factors among most of these gun violence problems is extreme poverty and mental illness. I believe if both of those issues were directly addressed then gun violence crimes would decrease by a large amount.

Agreed. Assuming guns were out lawed people would just stab each other instead, like in prison . Banning guns isn't going to put a stop to crime, people will just find other ways to go about it because of the reasons above.

I am 17 years old. I own a pistol. My dad bought it for me.
It shows that he believes I am trustworthy enough to own a gun, but see how easy that was?
He buys the gun, has HIS background checked, and gives it to me.
Now, I am an advocate of gun rights, but I certainly think that getting a gun shouldn't be as simple as receiving it as a gift.

btw I'm 18 next month, so its not that big a deal that a 17 year old owns a gun, mk?

And assuming you were to go on a rampage he'd be the person at fault in the laws eyes I believe. When you buy a gun legally you're responsible for keeping the gun safe and out of the hands of people who might use it on others. This said guns can find themselves in younger peoples hands all the time. It's pretty common for a kid to be mature enough to understand what a gun is where I come from. Another member in CSn has been shooting since he was 12, and use to shoot in tournaments etc. I myself have been shooting since I was like 8 years old. I don't own any guns myself however. I just happen to live with people who do it as a hobby.

[Balubish]

Sorry wrote a knew one :S

[Balubish]

As far as I've seen, the two most common factors among most of these gun violence problems is extreme poverty and mental illness. I believe if both of those issues were directly addressed then gun violence crimes would decrease by a large amount.

Agreed. Assuming guns were out lawed people would just stab each other instead, like in prison . Banning guns isn't going to put a stop to crime, people will just find other ways to go about it because of the reasons above.

I am 17 years old. I own a pistol. My dad bought it for me.
It shows that he believes I am trustworthy enough to own a gun, but see how easy that was?
He buys the gun, has HIS background checked, and gives it to me.
Now, I am an advocate of gun rights, but I certainly think that getting a gun shouldn't be as simple as receiving it as a gift.

btw I'm 18 next month, so its not that big a deal that a 17 year old owns a gun, mk?

And assuming you were to go on a rampage he'd be the person at fault in the laws eyes I believe. When you buy a gun legally you're responsible for keeping the gun safe and out of the hands of people who might use it on others. This said guns can find themselves in younger peoples hands all the time. It's pretty common for a kid to be mature enough to understand what a gun is where I come from. Another member in CSn has been shooting since he was 12, and use to shoot in tournaments etc. I myself have been shooting since I was like 8 years old. I don't own any guns myself however. I just happen to live with people who do it as a hobby.

"Agreed. Assuming guns were out lawed people would just stab each other instead, like in prison . "

Hey dude, cant do this with a knife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1UQwtNCMFU

[Maringue]

People will still get angry at other people. I'd much, MUCH rather some asshole who is pissed off at me have a knife and not a gun. And for people who say gun ownership is a right protected by the Contitution, I agree. But the Constitution also protects my right not to get shot as well.

And for discussion's sake, I'm just going to mention again that the SCOTUS has stated in writing that reasonable gun control does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Also that the 2nd Amendment literally contains the phrase "well regulated" in it. There's also something in there about a militia, but that gets ignored by anyone who is pro gun rights usually since it doesn't agree with their notion that anyone should be allowed to own an arsenal.

Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it a shitload easier to increase the body count.

[Balubish]

People will still get angry at other people. I'd much, MUCH rather some asshole who is pissed off at me have a knife and not a gun. And for people who say gun ownership is a right protected by the Contitution, I agree. But the Constitution also protects my right not to get shot as well.

And for discussion's sake, I'm just going to mention again that the SCOTUS has stated in writing that reasonable gun control does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Also that the 2nd Amendment literally contains the phrase "well regulated" in it. There's also something in there about a militia, but that gets ignored by anyone who is pro gun rights usually since it doesn't agree with their notion that anyone should be allowed to own an arsenal.

Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it a shitload easier to increase the body count.

AMEN! To that!

[HausOfJoel]

The problem lies within the system, and no matter what rules and restrictions are in place, there are ways to get around them. Guns are so easily accessible; you can have someone else buy one for you or just buy illegally with no record of it being purchased. You can even buy guns and ammunition at Walmart. I just think the restrictions and limitations need to worked out and watched more carefully so people can't obtain them illegally. There shouldn't be a ban, considering guns are also used recreationally and competitively, the background check and prerequisites need to be more thorough. This to me is where the problem lies, where it's not how many guns there are, it's who has them. People should be cleared psychologically to get a gun also. A lot of times most people do not have any previous incidents on their background, so there would be no predictors to any behavior in the future. There's no way to tell when an mentally or emotionally unstable person is going to snap. There's just a lot of factors that a background check does not take into account and look into, in my opinion.

[GoDM1N]

Hey dude, cant do this with a knife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1UQwtNCMFU

You cant run someone over with a knife either, don't know what that driver was thinking. Also that looks like Russia, yes? They have gun homicide per 100,000 of 15+. In the US its 5-6 depending on the year. That 15 is also forgiving, as just 10 years ago it was double. It hasn't changed much in the US. To add to that, if that is Russia, that handgun is not allowed by law and he is using a illegal weapon. So basically Russia be crazy.

[Balubish]

Hey dude, cant do this with a knife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1UQwtNCMFU

You cant run someone over with a knife either, don't know what that driver was thinking. Also that looks like Russia, yes? They have gun homicide per 100,000 of 15+. In the US its 5-6 depending on the year. That 15 is also forgiving, as just 10 years ago it was double. It hasn't changed much in the US. To add to that, if that is Russia, that handgun is not allowed by law and he is using a illegal weapon. So basically Russia be crazy.

I used this clip like an example, if u have a gun on you, you more likely will use it like in the clip. If its at home locked in a safe well that shit wouldnt happen, If less ppl own a gun in the first place. Dont know if it Russia but agree it sounds like it. And dont know about any of the law there either.
No I get that, but If it is much easier to own a weapon its a bigger chance that things like that happen. What the news said about that clip was that the idiot with a gun refused to leave the road thats why the guy in the car tried to push him away with the car, I dont say that was the smartest thing to do but. Well I rather also have done it that way If I knew that fucked up kid had a gun on him. He could accidently shot someone in the walkway or another car, maybe some kid in another car etc, the list can go on and on. Only cause u have a gun and only wanted to scare him, other ppl can get hurt, or worst case dead!

Aslo I dont say that all ppl that get a gun from someone as a present will use it for bad purpose but, well the last idiot isnt born yet. Look at School shootings in the US, Finland etc. Disturbed kids with easy reach of a gun. Did they know before he might have takin their parents gun and kill alot of other kids, well no. But It was easy for them to get the gun. That's what I think all this are about. =Harder rules for gun owners.=

[GoDM1N]

If its at home locked in a safe well that shit wouldnt happen, If less ppl own a gun in the first place. Dont know if it Russia but agree it sounds like it. And dont know about any of the law there either.

Aslo I dont say that all ppl that get a gun from someone as a present will use it for bad purpose but, well the last idiot isnt born yet. Look at School shootings in the US, Finland etc. Disturbed kids with easy reach of a gun. Did they know before he might have takin their parents gun and kill alot of other kids, well no. But It was easy for them to get the gun. That's what I think all this are about. =Harder rules for gun owners.=

I cant argue that allowing guns doesn't make it easier for kids to get their hands on them, because it does. As far as the video I think it helps my point. Handguns are illegal in Russia, didn't stop this guy from getting one, and using it. Gun laws in general are much stricter there as well, and they have a higher homicide per 100,000 rate than the US. This is because most guns used in gun crime are not legal, they're not traceable and idiots are more likely to use them.

My only argument as far as kids getting their hands on them is owners need to keep things like that in mind. There are about 7-8 guns in my grandfathers house where I grew up. They were hidden and I had no idea they existed until I was around 18ish.

[UncleTestes]

This will be the aforementioned second time I weigh in on this.

First, thank you guys for keeping it clean the second round, and thanks for all of your opinions.
I'm siding with Joel and Godmin, and I have to respectfully disagree with Maringue, although he makes some valid points.

Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it a shitload easier to increase the body count. (You forgot the most important part of my quote, FTFY)

You're right, people kill people. But I believe Congress and Biden are going after the wrong aspects of gun control. Background checks are fantastic for bank robbers who buy their guns at Gander Mountain, but when does that happen? Mag size limits really only hurt self defense, when facing more than one attacker and at farther range. If a guy wants a bigger mag, he'll go outside the state or country.

The best short-term step we can take, I believe, is simply to inform the public that they need to keep the majority of their guns out of reach of children, ESPECIALLY if they're known to have a mental illness associated with violence, or if they are just violent in general. Of the several hundred of the guns my dad owns, I have immediate access to but 2 loaded ones: a shotgun above the door and a revolver in his nightstand. But as far as I know I don't have any mental conditions, and I'm pretty good about gun safety.

I think a good way to implement this is to have a mandatory gun safety class which will give you a card that you can show to a seller. It should be renewed after some period of time, maybe 4 or 5 years. Criticism welcome.

As for the mentally ill, I know it's sad to say they don't need to own a gun, because they may be targeted, but I'm afraid that may be our best course of action.

[Maringue]

Cars are not designed for the sole purpose of killing something or someone. Stop comparing them to guns.

Also, Russia is the fucking Wild West. I've had several friends who lived there for a year and put it simply, "I used to leave the house with a $20 folded up and tapped under the picture of my passport for when I would get asked for ID by the cops. Unless you shot someone, $20 will most likely get you out of a jam with the cops." Yeah, if you are using Russia as an example of how laws are enforced, then you're doing it wrong.

Yes, I've heard the "criminals don't obey gun laws, so why have them?" argument about 100 times in the last 3 days. Fine, drug users don't obey drug laws, so why have those? Murderers don't obey murder laws, so why have those? Why have any laws since criminals won't obey them? If you can't see how stupid that line of argument is, I can't help you.

Criminals have to get guns from somewhere, they don't just magically appear on the black market to be bought by criminals. They have to be stolen (we can't trace guns that are stolen, thanks NRA), they can be bought from a friend who is legal to buy a gun (can't have those people submit to background checks, thanks NRA) or the can just be ordered off the fucking internet (can't have background checks for those people either, thanks NRA), but they have to come from somewhere, so don't try to sell me this line that creating tighter regulation around the manufacture, sale or transport of these weapons won't help keep them out of criminals hands, because it's bullshit.

And if you want to throw around examples of other countries like Russia, why don't we look at Australia? Their gun control seems to work just fine.

[GoDM1N]

Fine, drug users don't obey drug laws, so why have those?

Good question.

Murderers don't obey murder laws, so why have those?

Because unlike gun control and or drug laws, ones in place to purposefully stop people from hurting each other. Just because someone owns a gun, doesn't mean they're going to use it as a weapon against others. Just because someone takes drugs, definitely doesn't mean people are going to go out and kill each other simply because they're on drugs.

And if you want to throw around examples of other countries like Russia, why don't we look at Australia? Their gun control seems to work just fine.

I would attest that this is because of lower mental illness levels than places like the US or Russia, not because of gun laws. The rates are twice as high in the UK than Australia, and they have similar gun control laws. (Not a right guaranteed by law, no semi auto or auto weapons allowed). Also if you compare the three countries (US, UK and AU) the poverty rate is much higher in the US. To add to this, the child poverty rate is MUCH higher than the other two, over double. It is 23.1% for the US, and the closest country is Spain, at 17.1% (AU at 10.9%, UK at 12.1%.) Source.

I would also say we have much worse problems with gangs etc due to our location and other laws (such as our drug laws) that don't mix well. All we've done is waste money funding what causes a large percent of our problems, and it has made things actually get worse. You'd think with all the money we put into "protecting" our boarders, and the war on drugs, drugs would be at a decline, right? The opposite has happened. In the last 30 years the price of cocaine has dropped 80%, and usage has gone up. Some "drug war" we got here, it's the exact same thing that happened when prohibition hit and it hasn't done us any good. Please watch this and replace alcohol with drugs and tell me it isn't the same.

[check six]

i personally don't believe that guns have a place in modern society; their only purpose is to harm and MAYBE self-protection. but still, point is all they do is to hur people and i don't see why guns really hold a dear place in our hearts.

just_saying

also i don't really believe in the self-defense thing: you own plenty of blunt objects to beat the shit out of oppressors with, fuck just sleep with a bat next to your bed if you're so paranoid.

btw can i get unbanned i can promise that i'm as retarded as before, just depressing

[cloud]

what if the person invading your house has a gun.

gun > baseball bat

common sense there, killer.
Anyway, I could go into the whole second amendment thing, but the fact of the matter is that the people who don't own a gun for hunting or target shooting use them for self defense. Carrying a gun outside in public requires that you have you CCW permit, which allows you to carry concealed weapons. In order to get this permit, you must take an entire course supervised personally by a police officer. If he or she deems you untrustworthy, then you are unable to get this permit. I live very close to Detroit, and frankly, if I'm going to go into that city, I'm going to want some way of defending myself from others who may want to do me harm. In addition, if you whip the gun out in public without cause, that's brandishing a weapon, which also means bye bye CCW if you have one, and possibly some prison time if you don't.

On a side note, look at Chicago. Strictest gun laws in the country, highest gun murder rate. Are the laws really going to keep criminals from getting their weapons off the black market? That would remain to be seen, but until such a time as guns do become illegal to own, I'll stand by my opinion.

Also, the assault weapons ban bill was just shot down in the senate, so it doesn't look like a gun ban is going to happen any time soon.

[Maringue]

what if the person invading your house has a gun.
gun > baseball bat

Circular logic here. What if the person invading your has a machine gun? Bazooka? What then? Endless escalation cycle, circular logic.
Also, home invasion while people are actually home is relatively rare. Criminals like to steal shit when you are not there. And no, no anecdotal story you hear means shit, so don't bring it up.

Carrying a gun outside in public requires that you have you CCW permit

100% wrong. In fact, most states require ZERO permits or licenses to open carry your gun in public. By open carry I mean that your gun is clearly visible in its holster outside of your clothing.


I'm all for open carry, because you know who's not going to get robbed? These motherfuckers:

On a side note, look at Chicago. Strictest gun laws in the country surrounded by some of the states with the weakest gun laws in the country, highest gun murder rate.

FTFY. 99% of guns used in crimes in Chicago and NYC were purchased outside those city's states. Guns in NYC come from the 95 corridor and are brought up from Virginia (where you can buy 5 guns per day) or the Carolinas. In Chicago they come from Indiana, Iowa or any of the other states that border Illinois with little to no gun restrictions. And don't forget, it's not illegal to sell your guns to another person, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Also, I love this logic as it exemplifies the whole debate from the NRA's side. We have decided as a society that certain people shouldn't have guns. Ok. But we can't allow a system to be put into place that would check to see if a person is ineligible to buy a gun. Nope, we can't do anything that would make sense to a normal person.

So let's look at what the Senate shot down. Background checks. Gun trafficking laws. Pretty much anything that might do anything to stop people from being shot.

So when the NRA is shooting down legislation that 90% of Americans agree on, then who are they representing? Easy, the people who make money from more guns being sold. The only reason they give a shit about the second amendment is because it allows them to rake in billions of dollars a year.

[UncleTestes]

Well, now I'm a bit confused on Maringue's side.
You DO or DO NOT support gun control?

Also, Check Six,

i personally don't believe that guns have a place in modern society; their only purpose is to harm and MAYBE self-protection.

There isn't a MAYBE about it. If a guy is robbing you, shoot his ass and teach him a lesson. He probably won't do it again.
And say a guy is robbing a bank, using a pistol. If everyone around was unarmed, guess who's getting his money?
But, if everyone had a conceal carry license, and pulled out their compacts and pointed them at him, guess who's not getting his money?

[GoDM1N]

Well, now I'm a bit confused on Maringue's side.
You DO or DO NOT support gun control?

I believe he's for limited gun ownership and heavier gun control than we have now.

Also, Check Six,

i personally don't believe that guns have a place in modern society; their only purpose is to harm and MAYBE self-protection.

There isn't a MAYBE about it. If a guy is robbing you, shoot his ass and teach him a lesson. He probably won't do it again.
And say a guy is robbing a bank, using a pistol. If everyone around was unarmed, guess who's getting his money?
But, if everyone had a conceal carry license, and pulled out their compacts and pointed them at him, guess who's not getting his money?

This I disagree with. Leave stuff like this to the cops, assuming the guy robbing the bank has a gun or a weapon, pulling a gun on him would only agro him which could lead to deaths, and if people start shooting at him, what happens when the civilians miss? Imo people should leave stuff like that to the professionals because unlike you or I they're trained for it (unless they're the LAPD). While it is "we the people", it's "we the people" in the court room, not on the streets, so we shouldn't judge him to death for robbing a place. For all we know the gun wasn't loaded, and he had no intent for murder.

[Spyder]

Cars are not designed for the sole purpose of killing something or someone.

Neither are pressure cookers. Or rental trucks with some fertilizer.

[UncleTestes]

This I disagree with. Leave stuff like this to the cops, assuming the guy robbing the bank has a gun or a weapon, pulling a gun on him would only agro him which could lead to deaths, and if people start shooting at him, what happens when the civilians miss? Imo people should leave stuff like that to the professionals because unlike you or I they're trained for it (unless they're the LAPD). While it is "we the people", it's "we the people" in the court room, not on the streets, so we shouldn't judge him to death for robbing a place. For all we know the gun wasn't loaded, and he had no intent for murder.

I don't really think we can rely on "for all we know" when there's a guy with a gun threatening to kill anyone who moves. True, a civilian defender might miss, but there's a decent chance that if the robbery is in progress, then everyone will already be on the ground.
Also, when will the cops arrive? That man over there with a 9mm in his pocket and decent firearms training is already there and can do something. If 5 different people in the place a guy's robbing have open-carry guns, then the robber likely won't even try. (...crap, then he'll go somewhere where no one has a gun...)

[cloud]

Maringue, that picture is woefully misleading. I live in Michigan, one of the so called "open carry" states, and you aren't allowed to carry ANY firearm without a permit. There is a difference between open carry and open carry without a license my friend. And to have saved time, probably should have mentioned "in my state" rather than just saying requiring a license. My bad.

[GoDM1N]

This I disagree with. Leave stuff like this to the cops, assuming the guy robbing the bank has a gun or a weapon, pulling a gun on him would only agro him which could lead to deaths, and if people start shooting at him, what happens when the civilians miss? Imo people should leave stuff like that to the professionals because unlike you or I they're trained for it (unless they're the LAPD). While it is "we the people", it's "we the people" in the court room, not on the streets, so we shouldn't judge him to death for robbing a place. For all we know the gun wasn't loaded, and he had no intent for murder.

I don't really think we can rely on "for all we know" when there's a guy with a gun threatening to kill anyone who moves. True, a civilian defender might miss, but there's a decent chance that if the robbery is in progress, then everyone will already be on the ground.
Also, when will the cops arrive? That man over there with a 9mm in his pocket and decent firearms training is already there and can do something. If 5 different people in the place a guy's robbing have open-carry guns, then the robber likely won't even try. (...crap, then he'll go somewhere where no one has a gun...)

Civilians shouldn't get involved, period. No matter how much training they have in firearms. Its just a bank robbery, if a guy pops in and says "nobody move and nobody gets hurt", don't move. Let it go, its not worth it. Civilians getting involved will only complicate the situation and make it harder for the actual professionals.

Also saying "That man over there with a 9mm in his pocket and decent firearms training is already there and can do something" is the minority of gun owners. And, to me, its scary to have people with this line of thought. The last thing we need is vigilante's doing our law enforcement's job. Why not give everyone in our server admin powers? Because that's basically what you're asking for.

[cloud]

what godmin said

[GoDM1N]

[cloud]

Black guys - 1
Guns - 0