Gun control debate thread

[ozanzac 0]

Using guns as self-defence is a rubbish argument. If you want to defend yourself, take up a martial art such as Ju Jitsu or Krav Maga.

I don't know where you live, but the kinds of criminals (and in some cases just plain ignorant teenagers) we have in NY, Ju Jitsu is just going to get you a bullet in your head. The police don't help either, they're never around when you need them.

Anyway, I don't want a gun for carrying around, I want it in the home to scare off burglers or whatever else shows up uninvited.

Ever see the interview with Lord British, the guy who made the Ultima games? A gun saved his life, when a lunatic fan broke into his home.

I think the bottom line is, if you live in a country where criminals have guns, you should probably have access to one yourself.

Where I live, people don't have guns because other people don't use guns on each other. They were educated that owning a gun is a privilage, not a right. In general, People respect privilages, but neglect their rights.

If it were a privilage to own a gun in the U.S., parents of childeren who go on shooting sprees would be locked up for allowing their child to have access to a gun, because they neglected a privilage. But because owning a gun is a right, and questioning ones right is wrong under the bill of rights, they don't, thus idiocy is encouraged.

Doesn't it concern you more when America has like the largest rate of criminal offenses using a firearm in the western world? Doesn't that ring an alarm bells saying mayby having so many firearms lying around, with easy access to our streets doing more bad than good.

It's hard to say, but the american constitution gives its citizens too many rights, and it reflects on the statistics that America has. You sue more people for more reasons for more money than anywhere in the world. This creates an irresponsible society where you expect others to look out for the welfare of you as an individual, and in the home, the individual is supposed to have control, yet some of your fellow American's obviously don't have control over their own lives. It's as if your purposly ignorant to the fact that being so 'gung-ho' is doing more harm than any good.

To be brutally honest. The petty criminals of america are taking advantage of the publics ignorance that as long as they allow guns to be a right and not a privilage, crime will keep increasing. And crime with guns is not pretty, nor nice.

If you hang onto the fact that owning a gun is a right, and not a responsibility, then you keep allowing irresponsible people to own guns. It can't be that hard to see that theres a problem there.

You live in a country where criminals have way too easy access to firearms, yet you find it an almost personal insult to close the loophole which allows any 'Joe Criminal' to own a gun.

It begs to ask the question, Is American society degenerating rather than advancing, at a time when it needs to reconsider it's constitution most?

[Acecombat 0]

Man i hope i get to own a Bradley and some F-35 will be enough to topple my govt here i hope

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's hard to say, but the american constitution gives its citizens too many rights, and it reflects on the statistics that America has. You sue more people for more reasons for more money than anywhere in the world. This creates an irresponsible society where you expect others to look out for the welfare of you as an individual, and in the home, the individual is supposed to have control, yet some of your fellow American's obviously don't have control over their own lives. It's as if your purposly ignorant to the fact that being so 'gung-ho' is doing more harm than any good.

Cessna was almost driven out of bussiness by claims of people who died in crashes because they forgot to raise or lower the landing gear on their 182RG. Most companies who make ladders spend enormous sums of money settle lawsuits filed against them by people who make unsafe use of their product.

Quote[/b] ]

To be brutally honest. The petty criminals of america are taking advantage of the publics ignorance that as long as they allow guns to be a right and not a privilage, crime will keep increasing. And crime with guns is not pretty, nor nice.

Nor is any crime. Sure the laws need to be tougher, but i do think that the amount of people who go and buy a gun legally and then commit a crime with it are allot less then those who just buy a gun from some crackhead or illegal arms seller

Quote[/b] ]If you hang onto the fact that owning a gun is a right, and not a responsibility, then you keep allowing irresponsible people to own guns. It can't be that hard to see that theres a problem there.

Couldnt agree more, but would tougher laws prevent idiots from owning guns? Wont they just go and get them illegally. If i wanted a m16 clone here in the netherlands legally id get arrested before i finished the paperworks But you can still get them illegally without too much trouble. See what i mean?

Quote[/b] ]

You live in a country where criminals have way too easy access to firearms, yet you find it an almost personal insult to close the loophole which allows any 'Joe Criminal' to own a gun.

Close that loophole but also start going after the illegal route of getting a firearm more too

Quote[/b] ]

It begs to ask the question, Is American society degenerating rather than advancing, at a time when it needs to reconsider it's constitution most?

Lets hope that trends lessens when GWB doesnt get reelected

[ozanzac 0]

Would tougher laws prevent idiots from owning guns? Wont they just go and get them illegally. If i wanted a m16 clone here in the netherlands legally id get arrested before i finished the paperworks But you can still get them illegally without too much trouble. See what i mean?

Oh I see what you mean, every society has illicit and illegal activities going on in the background, held up by the underworld, thats a fact of life and noone could completly stop all criminal activities.

Would toughter laws prevent idiots from owning guns? The general idiot, yes, because the general idiot would only have a gun because it's his right. He feels no or not much compulsion to own a gun.

Put an emphasis on responsibility and that idiot wouldn't want to feel liable to punishment from not keeping a firearm properly secured. The determined idiots will still find a way to get firearms, but they risk trapping themselves because inevitably, thier idiocy will alert responsible owners and citizens to their illegal weaponry.

If someone in the US wanted an M-16 clone, they'd get it, too few questions asked, because its a 'right' to have an XM-15 Bushmaster or something along those lines. No real background checks, just a "hey billy-bob, are you a fellow american? Sign here, wait three days and you've got yourself the same weapon that the DC snipers used to knock out a handful of citizens"

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It begs to ask the question, Is American society degenerating rather than advancing, at a time when it needs to reconsider it's constitution most?

Lets hope that trends lessens when GWB doesnt get reelected

Lets hope so. For GWB to be re-elected, would to him, be the green light to invade another 'axis of evil' power.

That's another thing. If GWB is re-elected, Americans, don't hesitsate to use your right to use arms to overthrow the government. Though how you can re-elect a president thats obviously a failure in spreading world peace, is beyond me.

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh I see what you mean, every society has illicit and illegal activities going on in the background, held up by the underworld, thats a fact of life and noone could completly stop all criminal activities.

Well no, i think the problem would be more helped by going after the "underworld" as you call it more actively. Obviously they are the biggest problem in this whole deal. As most guns used in crime come from illegal sources go after the illegal sources. Maybe spend some cash on that instead of giving the rich back their taxes

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Re-Elect bush? Wouldn't he have had to have been elected the first time?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Re-Elect bush?  Wouldn't he have had to have been elected the first time?

*cue laugh-track*

[havocsquad 0]

*Smokes about 20 joints before posting.   *

I say give guns to every psycho, nutcase, teenager, and criminal on the earth.  Everything is fine, even if world chaos errupts, just as long as the U.S. citizens get their tax cuts...    

Whoa man, my ride just got holed up by some Granny with an Ak47, wait that's the woman I robbed two weeks ago.

Wow, I'm all red and got this cool burning sensation in my legs and gut.

*Falls on the steering wheel and passes out before being hauled to the hospital, treated, then having his bank account cleaned out thx to improved hospital billing policies. (Patch you up and screw you over with your wallet.*

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was not put into the constitution. It was an ammendment. Just like the one that banned booze during the prohibition. Right?

The first ten amendements are called the Bill of Rights. By historical, political, and sociological traditions they are treated differently than the rest of the amendments. Some might go as far to say that they are sacred and even more important than the Constitution itself since most civil rights and liberties granted to Americans are imbodied within them. The BoR is for all practical purposes untouchable because of strongly held social values. It would take a radical change in how this country is governed for them to be altered. An amendment becomes part of the Constitution when it passes legislation. Thus, it takes on the characteristic notorious to the U.S. Constitution, it is exceedingly hard to change. This would become even more cumbersome concerning the BoR. In over 200 years the U.S. Constitution has only been amended 17 times. (Excluding the BoR) Only once has any Amendment been repealed, that being XVIII (1919) or the Prohibition Act. It was repealed in Amendment XXI in 1933. In this time period other nations have gone through 5 or more constitutions. Do not mistake the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments or having the same character or value to the politically active of this nation.