Debates of all sorts discussion

Are the gun laws good or do they need changed?

True... I'm being quite vague... Well I'm of the opinion that all weapon laws should stay how they are... Well accept maybe some of the things you aren't allowed to take on a plane and other government building... Forbidding kubatons is a little ridiculous.

I think that you should be able to leagally carry a concealed handgun.

Aleph wrote: "i think carrying any gun should be illegal. people will say it's in self defense and that may be true- but if you're angry with someone and you just happen to have a gun/knife in your packet what's..."

What about the plethora of hobbies that use guns? What about the people who make their living off of selling guns (legally)? What about the 2nd amendment?

People would lose their livelihoods. And it's completely against the second amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plus, who says it's necessarily "the right thing"?

Cody wrote: "True... I'm being quite vague... Well I'm of the opinion that all weapon laws should stay how they are... Well accept maybe some of the things you aren't allowed to take on a plane and other govern..."

What are kubatons?

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure of the gun laws. Aren't they different in every state. Well, whats the age?

Cody wrote: "People would lose their livelihoods. And it's completely against the second amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and ..."

Yeah, but its still not right.

Look, guns are supremely dangerous and can be used for very bad things. I dont know if this is in the gun laws or something, but guns should only be held by people of ages 25 or older unless they are in some kind of police force. Also, they should have background checks.

I just have to share this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIMiLF... the best part is, that I'm Texan.

I pro-arms, I suppose. People have the right to self defense, and they have the right to own a gun to do so. Guns CAN be used for bad things, but people who get guns have to go through all sorts of screenings and appy for a permit and then a period of probation with the gun and lots of stuff.

Eh, I'm iffy on this one. Of course I support self-defense although I think shooting someone is taking it to an extreme––unless your attacker is obviously trying to kill you. I know you have to go through all sorts of things to get a gun, but then again, you don't know if your gun will get stolen or something and used for bad intentions... Or even the owner of the gun could use the gun on impulse and then regret it later.

Thalia wrote: "I pro-arms, I suppose. People have the right to self defense, and they have the right to own a gun to do so. Guns CAN be used for bad things, but people who get guns have to go through all sorts of..."

Oh okay, as long as they have the whole screening-process. I'm cool with it.

Self-defense is a right. People should be allowed to own arms. However, lots of precaustions should be taken. I believe if the person wanting to own a gun has a criminal background, then there request should be denied. For safety purposes, of course.

You guys seem to forgot something called hunting, it hurts no one and actually is pretty benificial to the ecosystem when regulated. Oh and the Second Amendment. the government is not allowed to no permit us to bear arms.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, just because people misuse them don't punish me and don't punish the gun.

Look, I'm all for hunting and whatever, I just thinkt here needs to be more regulation so "Accidents" or "misuse" is almost impossible.

I'm pretty anti-gun...as Aleph said they end many more lives than they save. But that's just it: I'm pretty anti-gun. My beliefs should not account for everyone, especially those who want guns for protection. Sometimes people live in rough neighborhoods, sometimes they just feel they would be safer with an arm in a relatively safe neighborhood. I feel we need more regulation, like luhvBOOKS. There are too many accidents.

In my perfect world, guns would exist for nobody. But this isn't my perfect world.

No guns? do you know that policemen carry arms? Military? You are just going to rid the world of guns, of our right to self-defense and protection?

Are you talking to me? If so, reread my post please.

I said in my perfect world, first of all. Second of all why, in a perfect world, would you need military or policeman? What, do you like war and crime? I sure as hell don't. Thirdly, in my perfect world, no, we would not need arms to protect ourselves from each other. Perhaps in your perfect world you would like things to be as they are, but no, not in mine.

You would still need guns for hunting, and some people just like to collect them, personally I collect knives and medieval weaponry *plays with knife* and you can't forget the 2nd Amendment.

In my perfect world there would be no need for the second amendment, because nobody would need a gun. And no Cody, you do not need guns for hunting. People were hunting long before guns and they were just fine. Once again you're failing to realize that this is my perfect world...I already said that in this world guns should be legal and you should be able to buy one if you want.

I understand Mello, I was just bringing up a point, and I agree you don't need guns for hunting but they're widely used. Personally I prefer a bow.

Well, okay. But just because something's widely used doesn't mean it's necessarily needed. I don't like hunting in general, so I try to understand for those that do. But they don't need guns.

Mello wrote: "Are you talking to me? If so, reread my post please.

I said in my perfect world, first of all. Second of all why, in a perfect world, would you need military or policeman? What, do you like war an..."

I'm not talking about your "perfecet world". Seriously, this world is far from perfect.

Mello wrote: "In my perfect world there would be no need for the second amendment, because nobody would need a gun. And no Cody, you do not need guns for hunting. People were hunting long before guns and they we..."

Are we seriously gonna hunt old fashion? You might as well just stick some feathers in my head and call me Native.

Well LuhvBooks personally I would love to do some long bow hunting but I know many people who love to hunt with a gun

@Mello, I think about 10% of the population hunts (most with a gun) it is a serious economic boon for the US all the gun and ammo sales.

luhvBOOKS *~Colin Morgan/JD Forever~* wrote: "Mello wrote: "Are you talking to me? If so, reread my post please.

I said in my perfect world, first of all. Second of all why, in a perfect world, would you need military or policeman? What, do..."

In that case, once again, re-read my post, then, because you obviously missed something I said.

luhvBOOKS *~Colin Morgan/JD Forever~* wrote: "Mello wrote: "In my perfect world there would be no need for the second amendment, because nobody would need a gun. And no Cody, you do not need guns for hunting. People were hunting long before gu..."

Funnily enough the Native Americans were doing rather well with their hunting methods before Columbus came along to hunt them. Perhaps you should read a history book or two before you decide to make fun of people which were far more advanced, albeit not in technology, than we are now. At least they weren't nuking each other, and that my dear, is the most primitive and vile practice I have ever come across during my time on this earth.

And once again if you had actually read what I had typed...you would have understood I didn't mean that.

Cody wrote: "Well LuhvBooks personally I would love to do some long bow hunting but I know many people who love to hunt with a gun

@Mello, I think about 10% of the population hunts (most with a gun) it is a s..."

I understand. I think guns should be available for everyone that wants protection and also hunting, I just think they're really unnecessary if we were to discount the whole "crazy person on every corner" and "people saying that the old ways are primitive" part of the equation...

The old ways are more difficult anymore... Much more difficult, the animals have a higher fear of us now, they're much more skittish and a gun kills faster then a bow.

Aleph wrote: "♥ Rachel♥ wrote: "Plus, who says it's necessarily "the right thing"?"

well doesn't allowing people to have he power over life, just result in life being taken away? I think people who say they wan..."

Not really. Yes, people do go psycho and go on a shooting spree from time to time, but they'd do something equally devastating even if they didn't have a gun.
I want to keep gun laws even though I'm terrified of guns. I like knives, personally '-_- Archery I'm not the best at, I took a class for a week at camp though xD

Cody wrote: "People would lose their livelihoods. And it's completely against the second amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and ..."

So as not to let this debate get oversimplified, I've bolded another significant part of the Second Amendment. Please don't lose sight of the fact that the interpretation of this wording is a large part of national debate over gun laws in the United States, and that the Constitution doesn't state flat-out that everyone should be allowed to own weapons, just as it doesn't state that they should be limited to those establishments (military, police) which the government empowers. Depending on which phrase you choose to read as more significant ('well-regulated militia' versus 'right of the people to keep and bear arms') it's possible to see a Constitutional arguement for either side. Let's make sure everyone is aware of that.


That said, I personally side with Mello in the 'in a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, but in this one we do' stance. I find them abhorrent as weapons and I don't actually think hunting is justification for them - mostly because there's no need for subsistence hunting for most people, and any kind of hunting which is neither grounded in deep cultural roots (such as hunting which may be practiced by Native American tribes, and I draw some lines with that as well) nor intended solely to provide for a person and their family by using all parts of the animal strikes me as plain barbaric. Trophy hunting crosses a lot of my personal lines.
Outside of that, though, I see the logic in the oft-used arguement that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". It's been proven over and over again that making something which was previously common illegal just enriches those who are already willing to break the law. (See: Prohibition and the Mob.) Faced with the reality of our modern world, I'd be afraid to see all firearms made illegal. However, modern gun laws are frankly half-assed. They ban specific weapons, sometimes those whose only variation from another still-legal gun is the length of the grip or the size of the bullets. It's ineffectual at best, weak-seeming at worst. Some weapons are necessary for self-defense, but the fact that varieties of machine guns are legal is just absurd. If you're in a situation where your life is immediately in danger, you need something small that you could carry, not a machine gun.

I also believe that having a weapon available makes someone more likely to use it. It's the basic principle of militarism, actually - 'oh, we have this army; let's test it out'. (Depressing fact of the day: General Leslie R. Groves, who was in charge of the Manhattan Project, referred to dropping the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki as 'field-testing' it. Because they wouldn't know what it could do until they used it to flatten a city. See what I mean?) It's like money burning a hole in your pocket, or how much harder it is to resist eating chocolate when you've bought it than when it's still on the shelf at the grocery store. Opportunity is a powerful lure, and when it comes attached to a gun it's just begging for violence.

There's also the fact that making guns widely available, even if restrictions are in place or people are required to undergo background checks to get them, makes it easier for them to reach the wrong hands. The two shooters at Columbine got their weapons thanks to a gun fair in the area earlier that year, for instance.



TL;DR: my thoughts on this subject are very complicated.

I'll post a much longer reply later as I'm on my phone on the bus to school but I've been told that the columbine shooters got their guns illegally.

Cody wrote: "I'll post a much longer reply later as I'm on my phone on the bus to school but I've been told that the columbine shooters got their guns illegally."

They did - they were underage - but if I recall correctly the source for those guns was a show in the area. I can look it up later.


(And Aleph: I'm a little confused about my own stance, to be honest. It's such a complicated issue that I can't put it in black and white.)

True ..

I think you should be allowed to if you take a test on shooting, who to shot, hobbies, etc. As long as people aren't ALL going to be like the ones that say murdering people is the reason to have guns or something like that. I mean, I probably might say that, but with something to cover it up as a good thing. Soliders and police are allowed to but we aren't. Unfair.

Don't they already have tests for a license, or is that for certain guns? I forgot.

Actually I think they do.

Tenebris In Lux wrote: "Don't they already have tests for a license, or is that for certain guns? I forgot."

I think for hand guns, and of course you need to get a hunter's license if you'll be hunting. Oh and their is a concealed arms license

Aleph the fact of the matter is your wanting to punish the whole for a few people's mistakes. Any murder done with a gun, would have been done regardless of the gun, a knife could have just as easily been used, if you seriously want to murder someone you don't need a gun. And we can't ban knives they're invaluable tools.

Cody wrote: "Aleph the fact of the matter is your wanting to punish the whole for a few people's mistakes. Any murder done with a gun, would have been done regardless of the gun, a knife could have just as easi..."

Can we back up and talk about how not allowing people to have guns is 'punishing' them? I'm really not sure what you can justify that accusation with.

Also, as Aleph pointed out, guns may not be the only way people kill but they do make it easier. Albeit this is not true of all situations, but: they can put the murderer at a distance from the victim, allowing them to hide and have time to escape safely; they remove an element of physical proximity from the crime, which might allow someone the mental distance necessary to commit it; they're extremely powerful and dangerous, beyond the level of most blade weapons. Heck, the whole reason that they were invented was to be a more efficient killing tool. That alone should render all comparisons between guns and knives obsolete.

It is most certainly a punishment. You two clearly don't live in a rural area, hunting is huge where I live, it makes people's lives, my best friend's dad is a taxidermist. If guns were outlawed people's past times would be destroyed, companies would be destroyed, and people's livelihoods would be destroyed. It would negatively effect the economy and as I said it completely goes against the second amendment, which clearly states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(granted the 2nd amendment protection doesn't protect those outside if the US, I live here so yeah)

Most people don't do that, many people love the taste of meat. Besides, deer around here used to way overpopulate the area and where considered pests, now they're manageable. Moderated hunting is actually really good for the ecosystem.

People hunt every day of the week that they can. And having to rent a gun every day would cost a ridiculous amount of money. So yes your argument is messed up but you're forgiven :P. A gun is a tool, as well as a weapon, the same way with a knife, or a pencil. What we need is a reform in how people are punished not less guns.

And why can't we own guns for the sake of it? I own swords and knives because I think they're awesome, doesn't mean I'm going to stick one in someone's gut. Shooting a gun at a target is good stress relief and fun. You can't punish the majority for the mistakes of the few. The old adage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I can easily kill someone with a blunt sword, hell many sword were made intentionally blunt, but the thing is, I'm not a troubled person. Guns don't kill people, knives don't kill people, swords don't kill people, people kill people, troubled people, people with emotional or mental problems.

My swords are used for form practice, and cutting (by cutting I basically mean cutting water bottles in half)

Your rent plan is flawed, if I wanted to kill someone I can just wait till I can rent the gun then go kill whoever I want. But like I said I don't want to kill anyone.

I think gun laws are for safety, but yet I think it would be kinda nice if like you were allowed to carry a gun for something like that.

Aleph wrote: "An your argument about, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' doesn't work. Look at at it this way:
A man is angry with his friend, for x,y and z- he has no gun on him:
They get into a fist ..."

Guns do kill people!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez ... that is frightening. O_O

Also, hi. I haven't checked this group in forever.

Hey

Even if all the statistics are saying that guns are dangerous does not mean we can ban them, we have the constitutional right, and unless the bill of rights is destroyed that can't happen. And as I said though you may not hunt in UK about 10% of the US population does hunt (many more have hunted at least once) it's a pretty big thing over here. And besides more people are for guns then against them, which means politicians will go with the majority for votes. So even if guns were bad they wouldn't be banned. You can't change an amendment in the constitution.

Hmmmm...... I'm not sure wether i'm pro guns, or anti guns, but after seeing those statistics i think i've turned anti.