Your thoughts on gun control.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Darkfinn

Banned
Messages
3,681
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
I was reading an article on the recent student massacre the other day. It occured to me that from what has been said by the authorities they honestly believe that they have done "all they could" to make people safe and prevent these things from happening.

This got me thinking... why not arm the general populace? It has been said that "a well armed society is a polite society" and I honestly think that crime as a whole would be reduced if everyone carried a gun.

A mugger or petty crook would be a whole lot less likely to attack someone or break into a house or store if they knew that odds were highly in the favor of their intended victim being armed. A hostage taker would have a lot more to consider if 10 out of the 20 people on that bus were packing heat.

So what about all these raving lunatics going on shooting sprees? I don't think that arming the public would dis-suade them from doing their deed... but they wouldn't get nearly as many shots off b/c as soon as they started firing they would be felled by someone defending their life. It honestly scares me to my core to think that my gf is out sitting in class right now... and if a gunman were to walk in... there isn't a thing anyone could do to stop him.

I have no doubt that people would die b/c of this. But remember... the criminals are always always going to be able to get the guns. It's the common man who often cannot... and the government has already admitted that it cannot protect you.

Opinions? Thoughts? Agree... Disagree... why?
 

Peachy

Banned
Messages
7,450
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer
You can guess my opinion on the issue.

The idea of creating a level playing field by giving everyone guns and more guns just doesn't work. The only situation where it did actually work was the Cold War, simply because both sides knew exactly that no one would have more than 5 minutes to live if they ever pushed the red button. However, that idea cannot be implemented on an invididual level.
First, most people have no clue how to use a gun. You'd have to train them in gun use and proper storage of firearms to prevent them from shooting themselves, rather than the person threatening them. I don't have any statistics handy, but I've heard more than once that more Americans die from weapon-related accidents than from the use of weapons for their intended purpose.
Two: If robbers or burglars knew the other person is armed, they'd become pretty darn trigger happy themselves. They'd just shoot at anything that moves, or not even bother to threaten someone but just pull the trigger anyway.
Three: People who steal, rob or otherwise threaten people for money don't do it for fun. You cannot cure the problem by trying to eliminate the symptoms. People steal and rob because they don't have enough money to live on. At least the vast majority. So instead of wasting money on guns, gated communities or private security forces, think about how you can help poor people to have a decent live. Not only is that beneficial from a moral perspective, you're actually increasing the probability of not being robbed or killed because there's no one who desparately needs that money of yours.

Peachy
 

Roland

Est. Contributor
Messages
428
Role
Private
Utopic scenario :
Get rid of guns. No armies, no war, no violence, no countries.

Realist scenatio :
No civilian should be allowed to carry a gun. Policemen should be able to carry sub machine guns and other assorted arsenal. That way, a new breed of policeman can live up to the standards of beating/overpowering/arresting the new breed of suicidal criminal that exists in our time.
 

recovery

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,234
Role
Other
I feel that firearms are for the Defence sector (the military). And for epople who live in areas or work near animals that could pose a risk to their lives, live stock or crops. Basically shooting pests, but only as a last resort.

But I agree with peachy.

Guns causes problems, not fixing them. If people were worried about personal secuity I vote for the tazers. Because it doesn't kill people, or at least no way near as lethal as a firearm. Again, people could be zapping people just for the wrong reasons. But at least the death rate of victims hopefully will drop.

There is the possibility of learning some marital art or something. By they time you learnt some lethal skills. You would be taught it so long that you learn to respect the power of you skills. So hopefully again, would reduce the whole "using it for the wrong reasons".
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
I agree with Peachy.

If everyone had guns, then criminals would probably arm themselves with something new or better than guns. Then you'd have to arm everyone with that. Then the criminals would find something even better... and so on.

And people are stupid, if guns were legal here teenagers would just shoot at people for a laugh. I can't think of any way of making guns available to the general population that wouldn't result in more people getting shot...

I wish pepper spray was legal, or tazers. I agree with UnMarth, it's better to have self defence weapons that don't kill people. (I'm aware that a few people have been killed by pepper spray, but you get my point).
 

BromeTeks

Est. Contributor
Messages
751
Role
Adult Baby, Babyfur
You live in the United States, Right Darkfinn? We have a little something called the second amendment. I don't know about North Carolina, But here in Wisconsin you're allowed to carry a Gun around if you have a license. And in Texas you can use leathal force to stop a robber.
 
Last edited:

Darkfinn

Banned
Messages
3,681
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
Yeah Col. I know all about it LOL...

It's one of the few rights that most Americans don't take advantage of.
 

Point

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,349
Role
Diaper Lover, Little
Here's a Bob the Angry Flower comic on the issue:

[removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grutzvalt

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,378
Role
Adult Baby
Constitutional right in the USA...have guns for protection...too many parents dont keep their guns in a safe...an 11 year old made a tutorial on Youtube on HOW to break a gun safe!
 

PuddleFopsKit

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,127
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little, Incontinent
Absolutely, horrible idea.. yes, it would give a level playing field, but can you say Anarchy?

If everone were to carry a gun, what would stop people from shooting you because you took too long to pull away from a green light? Or what if the guy at the taco place got an order wrong? What would stop the orderer from shooting the cashier, and possibly everyone else?

Anybody can have a gun, but you must complete A CHL course first. My dad carries a gun, and my mom carries one due to the *bad* neighborhood she currently works in. If everyone were to carry a gun without that course, then the Police force would not only be outnumbered as far as guns go, but there would be more "stop and pops" done to them for pulling people over.

So, to put this short: Everyone carrying guns= Police having less authority, and a major spike in the amount of shooting related deaths. The world is too immature, and angry to be allowed to carry guns anywhere. Some people SHOULD NOT have a gun at all- whether it be the fact they don't know how to use them responsibly, or just mental instability. Everyone carrying a gun would not a good thing, and anyone that says otherwise, really needs to think about all the problems we already have with shooting related death.
 
Last edited:

Jon

Est. Contributor
Messages
595
Role
Diaper Lover
My beliefs in a nutshell (as a gun owner): If you can afford it, you should be able to own it. Also, gun registration should be repealed.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Ah, the age-old topic of gun-control. The word "gun" is right up there with religion and race -- it's the unspoken taboo, George Carlin's unnanounced eighth dirty word, and the easiest way to make or break a political truce.

I speak from what I believe is the educated opinion of a gun-owner and advocate, a competitive firearms sportsman, and a citizen who currently has the right to carry a concealed weapon.

In America, it's currently being argued whether or not the rights of law-abiding gun-owners are being infringed with the passage of bills and laws that choke the freedoms of the gun-owner. As of 2001, we saw the infusion of the BIS (Ballistics Information System) in various parts around the country, requiring that every handgun that's sold be provided to the buyer only after two of its cartridges or casings have been submitted to the state-wide database. Why? It's used for identifying the weapon during crime-scene investigations.

Most people would think that that's a good idea, and even gun-owners might ... if it worked properly. It's an awfully flawed system, stated by both gun-owners and anti-gun advocates (because it infringes annonymity rights, and because it's a poor system, respectively). Various different sizes of bullets and cartridges can be used in a gun when it comes out of the box. Ammo sizes can be exchanged (i.e., a .357 round can usually be universally fired from any gun that uses .38 special ammunition, with the exception of some of the late 1800s Remington rifles), pieces of a gun can be easily switched out, firing pins can be replaced. There are numerous other problems that are presented with the Ballistics Information System.

Why do I mention it, though? Because it was another failed gun advocacy law, like the many, many out there, and what legislators fail to realize is that instituting new systems, new laws, new reasons to minimize the ability to obtain guns simply don't work to keep more people safe.

You've heard it before and I'll say it again, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." It's true. You put a gun in the hands of someone who's uneducated in gun-use, someone who has thoughts of bullet-slinging grandeur, or even someone who just doesn't know better, and you get deaths. You get accidents. You get innocent people dying. Why? Maybe because it was intentional, maybe because it was accidental.

For as much as I'm all about people having the right to keep and bear arms, I hesitate when I consider the idea of an Everyday Joe being able to carry a firearm around. He might not know how to use it; he might not know its intricacies, might not know how it's supposed to be used. Were that an education in carrying, holding, reloading, and most importantly, respecting a gun required before someone could be allowed to carry one, then it would be a different story ... but without that, we run the risk in today's society of letting the cup overflow itself.

A hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, guns were quite an important part of living. You hunted with them, you protected yourself with them, you could even -- by Constitutional rights -- keep the government in line with them. They held such a higher importance, and they were quite an integral key to survival. Nowadays, however, their primary use by the Everyday Joe would be for sport and for defense. Our food is commercialized and hunting is no longer nearly as much of a survivalist requirement as it used to be. Not to mention that the guns of the present are so much easier to fire -- on most, you need but flip the safety, aim, and squeeze. In their prime, guns were loaded by muzzle using black-powder, patch, and ball -- a requirement in their firing that lead to few instances of mistake.

I lay on the middle in this argument. I believe that more people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons (because I do agree with the fact that no matter the laws or regulations, lawless citizens will carry them and use them anyway), but I believe that in that case, every person who carried would need to go through a bit of education on how to use and fire and respect their weapon.

I believe that "no concealed carry" zones (areas where people aren't allowed to carry, regardless of if they have a permit to do so) should be outlawed. My college is one of these areas, but despite it, I carry anyway. Why? Because I'm not going to get killed in the event of a shooting because I'm abiding by a law and someone else isn't. Am I scared to be searched or questioned? No. I don't do anything out of the ordinary to make anyone do so, and I also wear the gun in a non-drop safety holster beneath my left arm. I don't wear it all the time, but having the permit and the ability to do so, I do occasionally.

So let's simplify it.

Giving citizens the right to carry guns:
Pros: People can defend themselves more easily; the knowledge of guns abound keeps people from acting out; firearms lose their awe-striking and socially freezing quality; law-abiding gun-owners rights are no longer infringed; in concept, crime lowers and preventative situations increase.

Cons: People resort to gun-blasts to solve normal situations; nobody feels "safe"; the threat of pointless militias becomefar greater; citizens get an itchy and hair-sensitive trigger-finger.

My stance? I have none. I believe that more citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, only if they have proven their competence with a weapon, have learned its dangers, and adhere to other preventative gun-laws (keeping locks on their weapon and keeping it out of the reach of children, for example.) My hesitance in saying, "Hells yeah, let people have guns eveywhere!" comes because, although I trust myself with a weapon, I cannot necessarily trust others, and I can't guarantee that others are going to adhere to the safety standards of a weapon before flaunting it like they're hot shit.

It's a good idea in concept; I believe, however, it's too dangerous an idea in application.
 

BromeTeks

Est. Contributor
Messages
751
Role
Adult Baby, Babyfur
I sort of agree with you on the "people Must know How and When to shoot" issue. Think of it this way: people will still be arrested for killing people. And I think that gun registration is a good thing, along with a mandatory 2 hour course on how to operate firearms.
 

Vaultin

Contributor
Messages
207
Role
Diaper Lover
If you are mentally competent to fire and control a weapon, and if you are physically capable of doing so safely in self defense or for sport, there is no reason why you should not be allowed to own a weapon. It is your perogative.
 
Messages
1,421
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Carer, Other
The second amendment of the United States constitution: All citizens have the right to bear arms.

Only way you're getting gun control in the U.S. is by breaking the constitution.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Unfortunately, the Constitution has already been broken a thousand other times for a thousand different reasons. As the ages pass, so it becomes more easy for people to re-define what the wording means.

This is the interesting part: If loopholes are there, they're meant to be found. James Madison specifically wrote Federalist 10 to express why an imperfect government walled in by imperfect management and imperfect documentation is the only way that a republic can function. That being the case, it was the forefathers' intention to leave flaws in their logic, because flaws -- in the case of the American government -- actually keep it from being monarchial or entirely democratic.

Guns won't ever go away; they will, however unfortunately, be constantly riddled with laws that come and go in an attempt to control their everyday use.
 

Yawgmoth

Est. Contributor
Messages
159
Role
Private
I suppose I'll pop my head in here and give my two cents about this topic.

Basically, I agree with a good number of you in saying that if everyone had guns then there'd be much less crime. I forget which comedian said it, but they summed up the idea nicely in saying that the airlines have their safety procedures all wrong. Instead of taking away passengers' guns, they should instead give each passenger a gun with a single bullet in it. If everyone had a gun on the plane, then no one would stand a chance in hijacking it. :educate:

I guess that's all I have to say...
 

Gingy

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,124
Role
Adult Baby, Sissy
guns aren't bad, they are used for lots of recreational activities ex: trap shooting and bi-athalons.

Guns don't kill people, bad people use them to kill people.

I say get rid of bad people!
 
Messages
3,464
Role
Private
Coming from a country that has insanely strict gun laws, I can't help but be a little biased in my opinion toward guns.

Let's face it, if you live in a violent country, where crime is sprawling, then yes, I feel it should be acceptable to have a gun. If you live in a relatively low-crime country, then I see no reason for it. The problem with this though is where to draw the line between what is considered high crime and low crime.

Personally, I don't see any need for personal firearms, and I certainly don't buy the "just in case" excuse either. Guns kill, no two ways about it. No matter how trained and proficient you are in using them, there is always a margin of error that something could go wrong. An imperfect person, in control of an imperfect weapon. Sounds like a recipe for disaster that will come to fruition eventually.
 

Aidy

Est. Contributor
Messages
334
Role
Adult Baby, Little, Carer
Anarchy isn't a bad thing if you actually read up on it (really read up on it not just look it up in the dictionary... it's about peace, individuality and love for others... just doesn't work with people :) ). It's chaos that's bad.

Still, back to guns.

There are many countries where everyone is armed where there's equality... most African countries are equal. Everyone dies at an early age, everyone is scared for their lives and everyone shoots before asking questions.

Here's a story that is a very big con again everyone having guns.
For some reason people with guns are a bit more... scared... then other people. They feel big because they have the gun but they are still scared. This guy in a place called Geraldton had a .22 in his house ... for recreation of course.. but more for house protection. He heard someone climbing through the window and didn't ask questions or aynthing... just shot.
Luckily his son had his ass turned towards him and only got a million dollar wound.

Having a gun and taking down criminals is the vigilante hero thing to do but what's the smart thing? Give them you're money. You might get a broken nose, kicked in the nuts or you're ear chopped off but they're not likely to kill you if they have what they want. If they do you are just one of the very very unlucky majority since most people in muggings who cooperate live with only a bruise or two.
If you pull a gun you are going to get shot since they already have a gun out.

2001 in the USA.

29,000 people killed by firearms
11,000 were murders
900 were accidents
17,000 were suicides (In Australia the highest rate of attempted suicide per 100,000 people is in the city yet there are more suicides in the country.. why is this? Guns. It's a lot easier to kill yourself with a gun)

We've talked about this before so I'll just drum up some of the facts I can quickly find from my child safety archive :). (I just download all the sites I use for my arguments)
In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group.
A child is 12 times more likely to be killed by a firearm in America then any other developed country.
Depression and drugs account for 2 in every 3 child death. (Drug wars included)

In Australia:

The biggest single form of firearm death was suicide, accounting for 3930 fatalities out of a total of 5083 studied. The number fell from 505 in 1991 to 261 in 2001. (Goverment buy back started in 1996)

Gun related deaths halved per year from 1991 to 2001 following the governments buy back scheme. (Our government bought back lots of guns from people due to new laws following the Port Arthur Massacre where one gunmen killed 35 people with a semi automatic weapon.

In 1996, 521 people died from gun-inflicted wounds, while in 1997 this dropped to 437.

In 1996 the government destroyed hundreds of thousands of guns.

The number of times a hunting rifle was implicated in a death dropped to 76 in 2001 from 282 in 1991. Shotgun deaths dropped from 133 to 54 but handgun deaths increased from 29 in 1991 to 49 in 2001.
So this shows that more people have been saved then killed by our introduction of very tough gun laws. The deaths by illegal style guns (handguns) only increased 20 where there was a total of 280+ less in all the other guns.
A good trade off if you ask me.

However, America is uniquely stupid with regards to guns so I doubt it would work as well in a country where 50 cal rifles and assault rifles can be used by the general public and everyone is scared of their neighbour.
I also like how the American police have 9mm pistols and shotguns when many crims have assault rifles... How's that for a fair playing field?

(In the UK police don't even carry firearms unless they know they are engaging in something dangerous... the night stick is deadly enough for them :) )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top