Gun Control - An American`s Opinion

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago in Misc

No matter what your view on gun control is, you should watch this.
There are 175 comments:
Male 3,431
I wanted to stand and applaud him myself.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Since I`m not shy about trashing i-a-b functionality when it falls short of basic expectation, I`d like to extend my appreciation that the sharing functionality has been restored so that I`ve been able to e-mail this posting to a friend.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@HumanAction- it`s cool, I don`t think I was entirely clear.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

I like the pictures posted better than all this talking.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
I think this is where I have trouble, you all have rights, some of which get taken away if you fail to comply with the `rules` you set as a country. but for some reason you feel that this particular right is more precious than the others- so should not be taken away no matter what. All I can see is that you apply the same standard and set rules- rules than would in fact enable a citizen to act as a militia- safety and competence standards etc... yet this is apparently a bad idea. Yet if having guns is to protect you against the government surely it would make sense that you all know how to use `em- thus back to cars- you pass a test to show you know how to use one and are required to maintain the vehicle. It just seems there is a dissonance here...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
There is a distinction to be made in this line of argument

Rights are automatic. You are granted them at birth (or at least when you become an adult). They can be taken away later as a form of punishment.

Privileges are granted based on certain conditions. Also they can generally be revoked at any time.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Yup- that liberty thing again. How is that going for all those incarcerated in your prisons??[/quote]
Works for me!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@sbeelz

Ah, sorry about that; I had misunderstood what you meant.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
I`m not saying that I think that the 2nd amendment only grants the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I`m saying that the right to keep and bear arms was granted because the founding fathers saw the importance of a militia for the purpose of national defense. Although the Declaration of Independence does pretty explicitly demonstrate that the founding fathers recognized the potential need for the American People to rise up in arms in the future, just as they did against the British government. I just think they probably foresaw militias being the driving force behind such a rebellion, as they did not establish a national standing army when they drafted the constitution. But yeah, again, I agree that an armed populace is a very important counterbalance to the power of an armed government.
0
Reply
Male 54
To all the stupid Americans out there from a very knowledgeable immigrant. Wake up America and educate yourselves. Use your brain and don`t fall for liberal garbage feelgoodisms!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]As for what the founding fathers intended, it`s right there in the 2nd Amednment- "a well regulated militia."[/quote]
Not quite. From Justice Scalia in DC v. Heller:

"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right` attributed to `the people` refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention `the people,` the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase `the militia` in the prefatory clause... Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to `keep and bear Arms` in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause`s description of the holder of that right as `the people`."

This is the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@HumanAction- I`m definitely for arming down the cops.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Gerry- As I said, I don`t support denying people the right to bear arms for offenses that have nothing to do with violence, such as drug possession. And no, background checks won`t stop guns from falling into the hands of all criminals- there will still be a black market. But it will certainly make it harder (and more expensive) for many people who have proven themselves to be dangerous to obtain guns. They won`t eliminate gun violence, but they certainly will reduce it. I think that the minor inconvenience to responsible gun owners is worth it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@sbeelz

[quote]Military forces can and are used against private citizens in some cases- just look at Egypt and Syria right now.[/quote]
It`s a little bit of a different issue that stems from the psychology of it. In those places, the military acts as the police as well. We all have a tendency to view our opponents as "enemies." As such, the US military views Us citizens in a completely different light than does the police. It`s almost a superiority complex (all my opinion).

That being said, the Constitution does not allow for the use of military assets against US civilians (NDAA somewhat freed that up).

[quote]Are you really comfortable with those weapons in the hands of private citizens?[/quote]
Not at all; I`m saying that we should have the option to arm ourselves to the extent that the police does. Either we can arm "up" or they can arm "down".
0
Reply
Male 2,868
As for what the founding fathers intended, it`s right there in the 2nd Amednment- "a well regulated militia." They never envisioned a centralized standing army for national defense, so an armed populace was necessary for national defense. I do believe that allowing citizens to bear arms IS currently an important counterbalance to armed state forces, but I don`t agree that`s what the 2nd Amendment says.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

"I support Criminal Background Checks"

If they`re a criminal do you really think your rules will stop them?
Laws didn`t stop them from becoming criminals, now did it.

A complete waste of time for "safety" but it does allow
the gov`ment to deny some people who may have had minor
offenses in the past. Remember, pot can be a federal crime.
But I`d trust my stoner brother over some squeeky clean
religious nut job any day.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@HumanAction- While it is true that police are more often used to oppress people in fascist states (hell, they`re being used to do so RIGHT NOW in the US), Military forces can and are used against private citizens in some cases- just look at Egypt and Syria right now.
Even so, police forces have fully automatic weapons, even if the average cop doesn`t carry one. Are you really comfortable with those weapons in the hands of private citizens? (Personally, I`m not comfortable with them in the hands of cops, but that`s another argument all together)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@sbeelz

[quote]So Let`s cut the BS- almost everybody can agree that the government is well within its rights to restrict the types of arms private citizens can own.[/quote]
From my understanding, the Founders intended this Amendment to serve as a counter balance to the government.

First off, the government means all police forces, not the military. In the past (even Nazi Germany), governments attack civilians with police forces rather than military forces (plus, do we really think the US military would attack US civilians?).

With that in mind, I believe that civilians should have the capability to own weapons equivalent to those owned by police forces. If the police can have a 30-rd mag, flashbangs, riot shields, etc, then so shall we.

My two cents at least.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madduck

[quote]but very very weasely[/quote]
This is how the Supreme Court has ruled; it is not just my opinion.

[quote]So you lock people up for things which do not endanger others, thus ensuring they lose status and yet will not allow a measure of control to partially deny a right when full possession of that right could prove harmful to others[/quote]
Pretty much. I am against most laws, by the way, though I will admit that this is currently how the system works. Obviously, it`s a biased view, but it is reasonable.

[quote]if you cannot see properly and do not have motor control then you would be a danger to yourself and others if you fired it[/quote]
I agree that people should take responsibility for their actions, and act responsibly. However, old ladies who cannot see over the steering wheel are still driving. The government is not good at determining proficiency.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
...That being said, I DO support universal criminal background checks. I don`t know just what types of convictions currently prevent people from owning guns bought from retailers, but personally, I feel like the only crimes that SHOULD prevent a person from owning guns are violent crimes, robberies involving guns (even where nobody is hurt), or acts of gross criminal negligence. The idea that one should be able to buy a gun after they have proven, through their own behavior, that they are a danger to others is absurd. I find it ironic that while it`s largely Republicans pushing against background checks, it`s also Republicans pushing to maintain VOTING BANS for convicted felons in some states.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
I find myself somewhere in the middle on this issue. I agree with gun rights advocates that the 2nd amendment is important. It IS easier for a government to exert complete authoritarian control over an unarmed populace. HOWEVER, the argument that the 2nd Amendment means that all arms control is unconstitutional is ridiculous. I don`t hear the NRA demanding that the ban on fully automatic weapons be lifted. I don`t hear them arguing for the right of all Americans to own an M1 Abrams tank. So Let`s cut the BS- almost everybody can agree that the government is well within its rights to restrict the types of arms private citizens can own.

That being said, I DO NOT support an assault weapons ban. Primarily because it is a token action that will do very little to curb actual violence. "Assault weapons" that are currently legal are involved in a very small percentage of gun crime. Plus, it`s not like the ban would apply to semi-auto rifles that don`t look like mili
0
Reply
Male 14,331
If you cannot see properly and do not have motor control you probably can`t load a gun.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
Mmm- interesting way of arguing... but very very weasely. So you lock people up for things which do not endanger others, thus ensuring they lose status and yet will not allow a measure of control to partially deny a right when full possession of that right could prove harmful to others. I still use the idea of very old ladies.. chiefly because that way I remove the idea of a value judgement but focus on safety- if you cannot see properly and do not have motor control then you would be a danger to yourself and others if you fired it.. like I said- I ma trying to grasp the logic...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]But I am sure you just said ...... so how come you can lose some rights- but not others?[/quote]
The premise of this is false. As Justice Scalia has stated, the Bill of Rights, when mentioning "the people," refers to MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. Prisoners are not members of the political community, and as such, are not guaranteed the same protection. This reasoning is consistent with other "faults" often argued, such as "what about the slaves!"

Many other liberties that are not part of the Bill of Rights have been taken away because they are not protected by the Bill of Rights.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
But I am sure you just said ...... so how come you can lose some rights- but not others?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Won`t somebody please think of the inmates!!! Mmmmmm naahhh!!
0
Reply
Female 7,997
Yup- that liberty thing again. How is that going for all those incarcerated in your prisons??
0
Reply
Male 4,891

A very intelligent (and handsome) man once said:

"The bill of rights is non negotiable. Other laws can AND SHOULD be revised as democracy demands, but not the bill. They are the basis of this country, and if you don`t agree with those rights, you are in the wrong country. "
0
Reply
Female 7,997
Yeah- I heard that idea- that`s the one that scares the crap out of me. Blind people also may not actually be the best people to have guns, or even very short sighted people who don`t wear glasses, or those with motor control issues. The idea that gun control means taking guns away is not true- it means control... and sorry, no matter what anyone says, common sense dictates that quite a few sets of people are just not safe to have guns.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

One easy control system is Arm Everyone.
If you knew you stood a very good chance of getting your ass shot off, you`d probably behave better.

That`s just one school of thought. There are others.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
I do get it Gerry- it is just that, for example- in NY i have to buy a gun then wait two weeks before I can get it then fill in paperwork, but In PA I can jus go and buy one, without notice. i decide one day that my neighbour is an alien- I go to buy a gun, but have to wait - but hey- a hour down the road and I am all kitted out, ready to blow the brains out of that alien neighbour. so the tighter restrictions in NY are actually pointless because I can drive? I can see the problem, and I can see you cannot/should not ban guns- but some sensible, universal control seems needed- and I would have thought that all states could agree- so each state has a law which is the same as the federal law- and all those laws are the same? Because- those old ladies--- they are really really not good people to have armed- they shoot worse than they drive.....
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@wzntme1776 - Semper Fi, brother
0
Reply
Male 39,556

madduck, think of the US as kinda like the UK

Each state is supposed to rule itself, just as Scotland & Wales have their own parliaments. Our Federal government was never supposed to rule over us, just provide stable economy & military. It`s grown and grown and is out of control. STATES RIGHTS to make something legal, or not, depending on local values and mores. That`s why prostitution is legal in Nevada but not in California {except politicians of course}.

Gun control is a States Rights issue to regulate. Just as some states legalize pot, but the Feds don`t want to legalize it. {The Feds have no business outlawing it.} You see the prickle we`re in? It`s a mess on every topic, guns, drugs, who can marry who.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
You all have a right to liberty- you imprison people all the time, yet you baulk at preventing certain people from owning guns- how is that different? By all your arguments your freedom is a privilege? You claim that you have gun control- yet it seems to vary from state to state- thus making it as effective as the least controlled state. surely if you own a gun you need to abide by certain standard- have appropriate training, go on a course every year or so, keep track of your guns ( i.E- DON`T LOSE THEM) - and if you can show that you abide by these very basic standards you get to have a gun... if not you have proved you are irresponsible. These wee old ladies, who apparently carry big guns, with failing eyesight, arthritic wrists and possible Alzheimers- do you think this is a good and safe idea? The mad bloke down the road- with anger issues, drug related paranoia, who has done 10 years for GBH- him too?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Allow me to posit that mass murders and all other crimes would be greater reduced by corrupting the First Amendment than corrupting the Second. By controlling the media (video games, news, movies, music, etc.), I believe that these crimes would be reduced far more than if we were to simply control firearm availability.

Surely then, we should be discussing how to alter or repeal the First Amendment; think of all the good it could do.

Of course, we won`t do that - it`s crazy. Why can`t we do that? Because it`s in the Bill of Rights.... but the Second Amendment, that`s fair game right? Because, well, it`s old and the Founders didn`t know we`d have these modern weapons. But then again, the First Amendment is old too, and the Founders didn`t realize we`d have the internet, radio, or television. So, what the heck, let`s give it a try, eh?

Don`t be a hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

You want licenses to own a gun?
And who is denied the license?
Who qualifies to own a gun?
Who doesn`t?
And once you start that, next year they add to the list of "unworthy" types.

Example, can someone who has a history of psychological problems get a license? You realize anyone who ever went to a therapist for any reason has a "history". What about antidepressants? Check the YES box "have you ever taken antidepressants" and you can be denied. Even if it was 15 years ago during a bad divorce and you don`t take them anymore. Maybe you`re worse because you stopped taking them!

See where this goes?
0
Reply
Male 27
@whodat6484: Semper Fi
0
Reply
Male 27
"I would honestly say that that statistic means that gun control is infact the answer. We are not controlling the flow of guns away from the registered. If the only ppl allowed to own were those that were registered, then by those numbers we would have a lot less gun violence."

Ask Chicago and DC how that worked out for them. youre missing the point. the people killing other people dont take the time to apply for a gun license and get their weapons registered. They get them illegally just like theyll continue to do regardless of whatever restrictions are placed on legally obtaining a gun. Think, man!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Me....


Ummmmm it`s the glasses right???RIGHT!!!
0
Reply
Male 39,556
0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 39,556
0
Reply
Male 130
Madduck; that`s a dishonest tactic. "It says they can have guns, but it doesn`t say they can have AMMO!" And it won`t make any difference. It`s already illegal to kill people with guns. Surprisingly, however, criminals don`t follow laws...
0
Reply
Male 700
"English is not my first language" Proceeds to speak better English then the majority of English people
0
Reply
Female 7,997
It seems then that what you need is some kind of universal control. Gun ownership is fine, but just as when you behave in a certain way you lose your freedom then if you behave in a certain way you lose your gun. If you could agree on how that COULD be done and actually DO it, then those who do not comply could have the wrath of hell land firmly on them. Perhaps you could keep the guns but step down the ammo?
0
Reply
Male 883
oh and note the day of the last attack in China
0
Reply
Male 883
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I was amazed to discover you do not even need a bloody license to own a gun. [/quote]
If you need a license, it`s not a right; it`s a privilege. The difference is that a privilege can easily be taken away (especially if you`re stupid enough to tell the government about your guns).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"People that are against gun control have obviously never been to a country where guns are banned..."

You mean like here?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"I believe the point is that blades, like stones, are much less effective at killing..... The death counts aren`t even comparable."

I guess you never heard of the Rwandan Genocide.

Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were slaughtered with machetes. The government imported them from China because they were cheaper than guns yet shockingly effective.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
It was funny hearing Eleanor Clift complaining about how gun nuts are "hiding behind the constitution". Weren`t the poor souls in Gitmo doing the same thing during the Bush admin? Wasn`t she trying to hide while Bush was overseeing unconstitutional wiretapping?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Just because you CAN have a gun dosen`t mean you need one.[/quote]
Better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Repost:
0
Reply
Male 4,891

That chick in gerrys post....
I don`t know her or anything about her, but still I feel a burning hatred for her (or anyone with dreadlocks).
0
Reply
Male 39,556
0
Reply
Male 425
Aside from the excellent point he made about tyranny. Ice T has also said this; "A Firearm is your LAST defense against Tyranny"

;
I would also like to add that the first responders in my area (hampton roads) on average take 8 minutes to get there. Being a gun owner is not just a right, but a responsibility. When I carry, I`m the first responder; the only difference is, you didn`t have to call me, I was already there.
0
Reply
Male 554
i like it when people post an article on this site in response to some post that gets them fired up..

.. get over yourselves, no one read your crap. in fact, i`ll bet 90% of the ppl on this site read more than 7 lines.

0
Reply
Male 3,908
...and I agree that anyone who is irresponsible enough to leave a gun sitting around where it can easily be stolen shouldn`t have one in the first place.

When the federal gov`t steps in, that`s when the crazy gun-toting rednecks come out of their compounds and start talking about another civil war. If their state tells them they have to pass a background check they`re fine with it, if the feds say "Maybe we should put in some universal regulations to keep everyone on the same page" then all hell breaks loose.

I just hate the fact that nowadays, anyone who says guns shouldn`t be banned completely is automatically labelled a gun-nut and thrown into that category with the crazy rednecks. I`m a USMC veteran so guns/rifles were a big part of those 8 years, I like to hunt, I like to shoot at targets with friends and I`m safety conscious, that doesn`t make me a "gun-nut" though!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Outsiders can`t see the majority of murders with guns are done with cheap ILLEGAL pistols so they push with more laws which helps nothing. They can`t even enforce laws in place so how would this stop a psychopath? Leftists have been pusing this BS for a long time there just looking for something to push it with.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@turdburglar - I know you`re not in favor of all out bans, like some people are. I`m just trying to clarify that there are, in fact, regulations like background checks already in place. Sure, with a clean record you`re in and out of the store in 10 to 20 minutes, rifle in hand. It seems like when other people see that they interpret it as anyone can just walk in and do the same regardless of their criminal history which is not the case.

@madduck - That`s why it is such a problem because for the most part each state dictates their own laws regarding guns. The feds only step in when we`re talking about submachine guns, sawed off shotguns, grenades, silencers, etc, as per the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Ac
Female 7,997
Thank You- for those who took the trouble to answer without just being rude. Obviously some here have trouble with that concept. So- why does the control vary so much- surely It would be sensible to standardise it? what happens if your gun gets stolen- as did this woman- but she did not spot it for a while ( personally I think that it so feckin irresponsible and careless she should be made to eat the damn thing.but) It seems you have some control- but so variable and not effective in a meaningful way?
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Whodat - Don`t get me wrong, I am definatly NOT in favor of a gun ban. I was pointing out that a legal citizen with a clean record can simply walk into a shop and have a gun in just minutes...which is the way it should be. I have a CPL which means I can also walk out of the shop with a pistol (after background check). Permanent records are not kept by Govt. on rifle purchases. They are kept on pistol sales, which hasn`t prevented pistols from being used in murder much more often than rifles. When pistols (or rifles) are sold by private party`s (either at gun shows or just by friends) there is no paper work required.
Gun bans will not work. Neither will mandatory reregistration. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns in America already, with almost no way of tracking where they are, or who has them. My point on this whole gun control argument is not whether there should or should not be bans or more regulation, but simply that it is not possible. Reality.
0
Reply
Male 3,109
Wundt- you are correct; However in the past, the nuts, kooks, pedophiles, psychopaths and all the other segments that make up the detritus of Humanity, were few in number, as the total population was smaller. Now, we`re crowding ourselves out of space and resources so it just seems worse.
Perhaps we need to remove warning labels along with other `let-the-stupid-die` measures to bring our numbers back down to a manageable level.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
Exactly, and guess where background checks came from? They came from gun control laws & regulations. So to say that there is no control and anyone can just walk in and buy one would be a false statement.
0
Reply
Male 16
Really, I am surprised that noone is man or woman enough to just say "I don`t want daddy to take my toys away.." about the gun control topic.
7 years of military service and I love guns, main weapon for several years was GPMGs and LMGs. Still I think it is really a bad idea to give the twitchy finger average joe access to these dangerous weapons. Some people here talk about arming themselves if their government gets aggressive, really? Guys, these are the kind of people you shouldn`t arm!
0
Reply
Male 39,556

I think we should all take a breather.
Try to remember that, despite the hype in what laughingly passes for "news services", you are statistically safer now than at almost any other time in history.

0
Reply
Male 409
I am tired of this claim that today`s society is somehow `decayed`. It isn`t. It is different, but the idea that somehow everything was GREAT in the past is bull.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@drawman61

Well I don`t belive those things but ummm ya we did shoot our way out of your control thankfully.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Whodat - Yes, there is a background check involved.
I bought a Marlin model 60 just a couple days ago. I was in and out of the gun shop in LESS than 15 min. I will give the rifle to my nephew for his 18th birthday next week. I won`t have to file ANY paperwork or inform anyone in the process.
0
Reply
Male 102
@Turdburglar: Haha yeah, my girlfriend works at Walmart and they`ve been sold out of all their ammo for weeks now. She overheard a conversation between two kooks complaining about how there wasn`t any ammo and that it must be someone trying to control who gets ammo. No you f*cking idiot, you were just too slow to ride the crazy train and the other rednecks just got to it all before you.
0
Reply
Male 4,850
What I would do if I was running that meeting is have all the speakers who want to remove all guns stand on one side and the people who think they they need to arm themselves against the government stand on the other side. Then I would have both groups escorted from the building so a rational conversation could be had.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@turdburglar - I`m pleased to that you are mistaken about that. Dealers in Washington State are still required to perform a background check before they hand that rifle to you. That`s means you can`t just walk in, buy one, and walk out. If you have a clean record, like I do, the NICS check goes through quick, but it still has to be done.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Another interesting point is that simply mentioning a possibility of gun control has sent gun and ammo sales thru the roof. Manufactures are producing 24/7 right now, and suppliers still can`t keep up with demand.
Americans want the right to own guns. Debating gun control has put millions more guns on the streets recently. Just try to find an AR-15 at a reasonable price right now. The price has gone up as much as 4x, and people are still buying.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@madduck - New York State Gun Laws

I live in NYC so these state laws as well as the NYC restrictions all apply. Keep in mind that while outside of NYC, the purchase, possession and registration of shotguns/rifles are not required but if you want to use them for hunting you have to get a hunting license. In order to get that license you have to take & pass safety courses. Also, no matter what you want to buy, the first thing that`s done is a background check by the gun dealer.
0
Reply
Male 7,774
@McGovern - So you belive the moon landing was fake, 911 was an inside job and other conspiracies but think the people should hand over their guns and trust the government???

So you intend to shoot your way out of their control?
0
Reply
Male 3,745
cant we all just learn the moral of this story and move on to something else?

guns are cool. dont drat up with one on your person.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Whodat - I am pleased to inform you that you are mistaken about gun control. In washington state I most definatly CAN stop by a store on my way home, and walk out with an ar-15 in a few min. Rifle documentation (not regrestration) is kept ONLY by the ffl dealer you purchased from. Records are kept on pistols only.

In short, the pistol is tracked and documented when bought from a FFL dealer, and most murders are committed with a pistol.

Rifles are not tracked, and have far less murder associated. Which is more proof that reregistration doesn`t help prevent crime.
0
Reply
Male 8,427
patchgrabber-"A license doesn`t infringe your right"

Then you have no problem with requiring a license for your computer, your pen, your ability to speak, your newspaper, your church?

After all, it won`t infringe on your right.

madduck-"you need a license to own a car"

No, no you don`t. A license it not required to purchase, own or operate a car.

If you can`t even get that simple concept correct we can ignore the rest of your blather.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]So- what control DO you have?[/quote]

Both hands!
0
Reply
Female 7,997
So- what control DO you have? I have heard of people `losing` guns, one woman thinks her decorator nicked theirs 6 months ago...., never told the police and what the hell was it lying around the house for?
0
Reply
Female 7,997
however McGovern- whilst a kitchen knife is legal it is NOT legal if sold to a child under 16, or to carry in public unless safely contained. The logic is simple- you could have no good reason to walk down the street with a Sabatier in your pocket in easy access. Therefore it is safe to assume that anyone so doing is, in fact, intending harm..
0
Reply
Male 3,908
The funniest thing about reading all these comments is the fact that most of the Europeans on IAB seem to think that there are absolutely no gun control regulations in this country. Sorry to burst your bubble but it`s not like the wild west sh*t you see on the telly. You can`t just stop by the grocery store on your way home from work and pick up a loaf of bread, gallon of milk and an AR-15. You`re all clearly misinformed and might want to brush up on that before you start trying to state your case on gun control.
0
Reply
Male 1,836
I find the liberals squirming on this issue amusing. Red herring arguments will not win this one.

If you think only the Military and Police should hold such weapons, feel free to move to a country that has that in place already. See how many rights you have then.

0
Reply
Male 2,988
@PG: "Most of those bombings had one or none on the list of people killed. Doesn`t really make bombs out to be that effective, imo."

Fair enough, all I am saying is if guns are more restricted then more people may find it easier to go the bombing path. More people trying it usually leads to it being more effective.

"I`m not saying that crazy people aren`t the problem, but how do you legislate crazy? You already stripped the mentally ill of their 2nd amendment right and that has apparently done nothing."

True, we cannot 100% keep guns or any weapon out of their hands but we can make access to mental health care more reasonable. Seems these days that a crazy person has an easier time getting a gun than getting proper help.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]The demo rifle the AR-15 since 1958![/quote]

*demon
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]And if you think banning guns is like banning knifes and other weapons then yeah you`re retarded. Let`s make tanks and rpgs available for everyone too, your logic is flawless.[/quote]

So you don`t agree with your "experts" then!
0
Reply
Female 7,997
Okay- you need a license to own a car, but not a sword or a mace. Your rights allow you to bear arms and if you do not stand up to the checks to ensure you are a responsible gun owner then may I suggest bludgeoning may be more in your future. There are other rights that you forfeit by behaviour- so perhaps gun ownership should be one. If you are an upstanding citizen then you get a gun, if not, tough luck. As a nation you are not too fussy about other rights you deprive your citizens of...
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Oh yeah one of the strictest gun control regime in the world, glad you agree.[/quote]

Really now!! So you an own an "assault weapon" in the UK now??
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Only the number of death increased thanks to the modern rifles you can buy. [/quote]

ROFL!!! "Assault rifles" have exsisted since the end of WW2. The demo rifle the AR-15 since 1958!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@coyoteking: Most of those bombings had one or none on the list of people killed. Doesn`t really make bombs out to be that effective, imo. I`m not saying that crazy people aren`t the problem, but how do you legislate crazy? You already stripped the mentally ill of their 2nd amendment right and that has apparently done nothing.

[quote]Oh, it specifies that you must have weapons? [/quote]
No, just as it doesn`t specify that you do not need a license. A license doesn`t infringe your right, it just makes you a more responsible patron of that right.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Only in America does someone think it`s al right to kill a burgler.`

No, it`s OK in the UK as well. I once let a burglar live, but that was my choice. If I had felt threatened I could have used any means to end that threat; if I legally owned a gun and had it to hand it would be legal to use it. If I happened to be holding a chainsaw at the time I could have legally ended the threat with hunks of bloodied flesh.
I wouldn`t be allowed to do stuff to him once he was incapacitated, or pursue him as he ran screaming for mercy. That seems fair.

If I`d felt for a moment that I or my family was threatened I`d have killed wthout hesitation or regret.
0
Reply
Male 273
And if you think banning guns is like banning knifes and other weapons then yeah you`re retarded. Let`s make tanks and rpgs available for everyone too, your logic is flawless.
0
Reply
Male 273
@McGovern1981

"Ya like Switzerland!!! Oh ya wait a sec...."

Oh yeah one of the strictest gun control regime in the world, glad you agree.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

A person breaking into my garage to steal my car is not just stealing a "thing". He`s stealing a year of my life. That`s how long I will have to work to earn enough to replace what he took.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
The Chicago argument is pretty flawed. A city can pass as many gun control laws as they want, but if the surrounding areas have fewer restrictions, it won`t necessarily make a difference. Over half the guns recovered in Chicago came from out of state.

Secondly, if you`re going to say Chicago`s high murder rate is directly attributable to strict gun control, then why has New York City seen a drop-off in murders, while also having strict controls on guns?

Gun control in the US has to be one of common sense, because nobody is going to ban guns. An assault weapons ban, which won`t pass, wouldn`t even tackle the biggest scourge, which is handguns. To do that, you need background checks and better licensing, which are proposals most Americans support.
0
Reply
Male 4,850
"If you value your own life so little that you risk loosing it by me shooting you when you crawl in my window, then how is that my fault?"

Damn it, I guess I will have to use the door when I come visit in April.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"You don`t know if someone is invading to steal, kill, or return your missing keys"

if someone i dont know is in my house when they shouldnt be i doubt they are returning my missing keys. that person would knock, not just let himself in. it is pretty easy to tell which is the burglar and which is the good samaritan when they let themselves into my house.
0
Reply
Male 273
Canada has 3 times less intentional homicides than the US but let`s just ignore facts and fight to be able to live in a society where being safe means having to carry a weapon...

Let`s post this video and ignore the fact that everything he said is wrong, there were more mass shootings in the 80s and 90s than 2000s. Only the number of death increased thanks to the modern rifles you can buy.

Also dictators are usually elected or put in place thanks to the milita... And when a dictator is removed the biggest problem is the different militas trying to put their own dictatorship.
0
Reply
Male 8,427
patchgrabber-"Well to be fair the 2nd is the only one that concerns weapons, the rest are mainly procedural."

Oh, it specifies that you must have weapons?

No, it prohibits the government from infringing upon an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

It`s as procedural as the 1st being about printing presses and churces. The first says the government will not outlaw your printing press, the 2nd your firearms.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

@ sparki, your brought a man-with-a-knife video to a gun fight?

Do you want to ban knives next? How many senseless knife deaths will we tolerate before we BAN those items. Knives are designed for cutting flesh! blah blah blah
0
Reply
Male 210
keep the guns, do background checks!
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@PG: Terrorist attacks in the US scroll through the list and use ctrl+F to search "bomb". it happens a lot, not always successful or super deadly but it does happen a lot. btw this list does include domestic terrorism like Newtown and Aurora. you will see that guns are not the problem, its crazy people
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@MeGrendal

In Utopia you have to license your TV!
0
Reply
Male 39,556

The value of human life?

If you value your own life so little that you risk loosing it by me shooting you when you crawl in my window, then how is that my fault?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@sparki1980

Gee now I thought it was illegal to carry a knife over a certain size in The peoples Republic of the UK? How`s that working? Guess will have to make more laws to get to Utopia!!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: Well to be fair the 2nd is the only one that concerns weapons, the rest are mainly procedural.
0
Reply
Male 140
I think another problem with the argument made regarding value of human life (or lack thereof) is defining what is being protected. Americans are not shooting home invaders to protect a television. You don`t know if someone is invading to steal, kill, or return your missing keys.

Were it the latter case, I doubt anyone would invade.

What you are protecting is not objects. You are protecting sanctity.
0
Reply
Male 946
[quote]Only in America does someone think it`s al right to kill a burgler.[/quote]
@ Canoas: Do you really think the 15 year old knew it was burglars? When someone is breaking into your home, you don`t take the time to interview him to discover his intentions. (Oh, your here for the tv? Right this way.)You always assume the worst then act accordingly. You have to be a special kind of stupid to really believe the sh*t you`re spouting.
0
Reply
Male 8,427
madduck-"I was amazed to discover you do not even need a bloody license to own a gun."

Do you need a license to purchase a computer, newspaper or to attend church?
Do you need a license to keep the military from housing soldiers in your home?
Do you need a license to not be unreasonbly searched and your stuff seized?
Do you need a license to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights?
Do you need a license to be tried in public by an impartial jury, be confronted by your accuser or to obtain counsel?
Do you need a licenes to be guranteed a trial by a jury of your peers?
Do you need a license to not be imposed excessive bail or fines, or to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment?

So, if I`m not required to obtain a license to excercise my rights as recongnized by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, why should I need on for the 2nd?
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@spark: "the lack of controlling the flow from registered to unregistered. Which currently can happen easily thanks to the gun show loophole. "

thats now how gun shows work. you seem to be sadly misinformed and led to believe that just anyone can show up and leave with a gun in their hands.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@CoyoteKing: But that`s my point, you can only really find one. Now you are correct it had a very high death toll, but if you look at other countries that have banned guns your argument doesn`t bear out. There have been no bombings that weren`t terrorist related in Australia since their gun ban, iirc.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

sparki, my point was the UK doesn`t allow guns but has more violent crime. So the logical conclusion is that gun control = less violence ?

Howzat again?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]You do realize your own country has more violent crime than the US even with your tight gun control? [/quote]
Once again, this cannot be determined on the loose definition of "violent crime." You can only compare specific crimes.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"Possibly, but then why have there been virtually no mass bombings in the US? If they`re so easy to make and so much more effective than guns, why haven`t we seen more of them?"

19 Apr 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing 169 killed, 675 injured. i would wager that was just more effective that any all the mass shootings combined in the last 20 years
0
Reply
Male 329
Gerry1of1: "You do realize your own country has more violent crime than the US even with your tight gun control? "

Do you realize how much more blood there would be if their country let ppl have guns?
Case in point - imagine this guy with a gun
0
Reply
Male 89
"If we inconvenience them enough, then they`ll stop the behavior!" "Yeah because that worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq."
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]I was amazed to discover you do not even need a bloody license to own a gun.[/quote]

You most certainly do in my state.

[quote]"no one in their right mind values their computer/tv/etc over a human life." [/quote]

Wow hey look a European giving up and letting others dictate their lives. Lets value criminals lives more than victims what could go wrong with that!!
0
Reply
Male 8,427
Steelgrid-"I dont really understand the absolute "NEED" for guns."

There IS no `absolute need`. Some people do not need guns. Some people do need guns. It`s up to the individual.

What everone of them have, is the RIGHT to own them (unless they have proven otherwise).

Mikeoxsbiggg-"Just because you CAN have a gun dosen`t mean you need one."

And just because you don`t NEED one doesn`t mean you can`t HAVE one.

Need is not required.

sparki1980-"must be regulated by the government"

Where do you get the asanine idea that the term `well regulate` in the 2nd Amendment has absolutely anything to do with Government regulation?
0
Reply
Male 39,556

madduck, [quote]"it is ludicrous you really allow any person to have a gun. no wonder you are in so much crap " [/quote]
You do realize your own country has more violent crime than the US even with your tight gun control?
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@Canoas - "no one in their right mind values their computer/tv/etc over a human life."

I`m sure that a significant amount of home invasions and burglaries quickly turn into rape, homicide, or other violent crimes. In cases where a criminal breaks in thinking no one`s home and is then startled to see that they are, their first instinct would be to silence the witness.
0
Reply
Male 329
Gerry1of1
"Okay, then why is Chicago statistically one of the most violent cities in the US? It has the strictest gun control laws."
1) What are the statistics of gun registrations vs those with guns in Chicago, cause that`s really the only stat that you can use to argue against my point.. because:
2) The stat referred to was about exceptionally small number of gun crime committed by registered gun users, and my point was the lack of controlling the flow from registered to unregistered. Which currently can happen easily thanks to the gun show loophole.
3) The time needed for an unregistered person to drive out of the city of Chicago to a place that is less regulated and buy a gun (now taking him out of the 1% stat mentioned) is minimal.

QED) Now due to lack of gun control, you have an unregistered gun owner living in chicago... And as pointed to by the stat I was referencing - most gun violence is committed by the unregistered.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Okay, then why is Chicago statistically one of the most violent cities in the US? It has the strictest gun control laws.[/quote]
Problem is, you cannot think of Chicago itself as an isolated system. When you have a number of shall issue states bordering Illinois, I would assume the number of illicit guns that make their way into the city is considerable. Without a federal law that applies throughout the country, no one place in the US is a closed system. Chicago`s laws were doomed to failure from the start.
0
Reply
Female 7,997
I was amazed to discover you do not even need a bloody license to own a gun. Surely that is where you start- get a license, know how many guns the license holder has then KEEP track of it... it is ludicrous you really allow any person to have a gun. no wonder you are in so much crap with the bloody things.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

Canoas - it IS all right to shoot a burglar.
What kind of world do you want to live in where a person
cannot defend their own home? Does a harmless burglar look different from a guy coming in to rape or kill? I for one don`t want to wait until I am shot to find out.

But if you think sending them Thank You Notes is a better solution, let me know how that works out for you.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Canoas - That is plain stupid. First off...you are european, YOU DON`T COUNT. Secondly...It is most defiantly ok to shoot someone who breaks into your house. Fecking pussy. Only a sociopath would strip the right of self protection from the law abiding just to protect a criminal. Pussy idiot from the worst generation ever.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

[quote]"I would honestly say that that statistic means that gun control is infact the answer." [/quote]
Okay, then why is Chicago statistically one of the most violent cities in the US? It has the strictest gun control laws.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]If people can make IEDs so easily in Iraq and Afghanistan than I`m sure a person with mental health issues could do the same here. One bomb can be much more "effective at killing" than one bullet.[/quote]
Possibly, but then why have there been virtually no mass bombings in the US? If they`re so easy to make and so much more effective than guns, why haven`t we seen more of them?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]A gun ban would not work. There are more guns than people. Most are not registered. Majority of Americans want the right to bear arms.[/quote]
That last part is the key to why I also agree that gun control in most forms just won`t work in the US. It`s not like it`s just republicans that like guns, there are many democrats that love them too. This talk of tyrannical governments is just a red herring. When you mix a violent culture with ready access to guns and a heartfelt love of them, it`s virtually impossible to stop. That being said, things like background checks don`t limit anyone`s access to anything unless you aren`t supposed to have it in the first place. There`s nothing wrong with trying to ensure those that have guns are responsible with them.

0
Reply
Male 427
@Gerry1of1
Are you serious? That`s definitely not pro-gun, if anything that article proves AR-15 should be banned.
Only in America does someone think it`s al right to kill a burgler.
"Oh, you`re trying to take my TV? Here`s a bullet to the face"
That`s why no one likes americans. You guys are sociopaths, no one in their right mind values their computer/tv/etc over a human life.

The only reason why I don`t want gun control in the US is so you guys are free to kill each other off.
0
Reply
Male 329
"Figure that less than 1% of registered gun owners have gone on shooting rampages and you will see that `gun control` is NOT the answer."

I would honestly say that that statistic means that gun control is infact the answer. We are not controlling the flow of guns away from the registered. If the only ppl allowed to own were those that were registered, then by those numbers we would have a lot less gun violence.
0
Reply
Male 427
It`s moronic to say that cities/states with stricter gun control should have less gun related crime. Anyone can get a gun in those cities, they just need to drive a bit more to get them. Either make the whole country`s gun laws stricter or don`t. Doing it state by state will get you nowhere.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
I applaud that man
0
Reply
Male 39,556

[quote]"You jackasses realize that the gun control debate today has very little to do with handguns...right?" [/quote]
It`s the old "Slippery Slope" isn`t it. Once you take away one gun, it`s easier to take away another.

Much like Once you let the government listen in on one phone call, it`s easier for warrant-less wiretapping to become standard practice.
0
Reply
Male 27
Figure that less than 1% of registered gun owners have gone on shooting rampages and you will see that `gun control` is NOT the answer. The majority of gun murders are committed by UNREGISTERED gun owners; therefore, gun control will only limit registered gun owners from protecting themselves against unregistered gun owners that will still get their guns regardless of whatever gun control measures are implemented.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

Here is a dandy little link I found in the LIVE SUBMISSIONS.
It was never approved `cause pro-gun news items almost never get posted.

15 Year old shoots burglars protecting his 12 year old sister
0
Reply
Male 886
You jackasses realize that the gun control debate today has very little to do with handguns...right? Other than concerns with growing magazine capacity...it is about weapons that give amateur psychopathic shooters the capability to murder many in a short time.

I am well protected with a .38 revolver in one of the worst areas in the US.

It is hard enough to consider backdrop when shooting with a powerful handgun...given a rifle it is frightening to think of how much damage an errant shot could do.
0
Reply
Male 329
So CoyoteKing, I agree it`s not ideal for all the guns to be kept at certain locations. That again thanks to advancements that have happened in over 200 years, the government can swiftly take out all militia`s in a coordinated effort. Something that would have been impossible before the telephone.

But if you want to protect yourself from a government with tanks and planes, then you need tanks and planes.. if you don`t then you might as well just have rocks. And if I own a tank or a predator drone and live next to you, do you want me to just keep it in the garage?? Do you just want to assume that that kind of power living next to you is not going to snap one day and take out the entire block?

The wording is "well regulated". So already 2nd amendment states that these militia`s that we have to protect ourselves from the government must be regulated by the government.

As I said I love the "militia vs bad gov" argument bc it`s stupid. And gun
0
Reply
Male 3,908

0
Reply
Male 14,331
"Nothing we`re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Joe Biden

But lets waste time and money anyway cause it`ll keep people from seeing everything else we`re f**king up!!
0
Reply
Male 886
So...the same title under the video that someone else put on another site.

Not very creative.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

The bill of rights is non negotiable. Other laws can and should be revised as democracy demands, but not the bill. They are the basis of this country, and if you don`t agree with those rights, you are in the wrong country.

A gun ban would not work. There are more guns than people. Most are not registered. Majority of Americans want the right to bear arms. I own weapons so I can ACTIVELY protect my home and family. I will not give up my rights to protect others who have not taken the same active approach to protection and safety.

It`s sad when people are shot. It`s also not my problem and defiantly not my fault. Find a way to prevent such criminals without striping me of my right and protection.

Regardless of how you feel about guns, the fact remains, a ban will not work.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"a country where guns are banned..."

so your police force and military don`t have guns? the 2nd amendment is mainly there to let the people protect themselves from the government
0
Reply
Male 39,556

If strict gun control laws reduced violent crime
then Chicago would be the safest place on Earth.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Tekinette

Ya like Switzerland!!! Oh ya wait a sec....
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"And require EVERY weapon be stored at a "militia hq"/"gun club". This way we have a chance against bad gov, and we don`t have to worry about the wako"

Great idea, when the bad government wants to take away guns from the people, and they don`t want to worry about militias then they will know exactly were all our guns are kept and raid those places first. Do you even think before you come up with these crazy ideas? It is much harder to disarm 100 households with one gun each in their 100 houses, than disarm 100 households with one gun each that are all kept in one location. Same goes for the wako, he now knows where to find all the guns. He probably isn`t worried about breaking to steal them if he plans to shoot others and himself anyways.
0
Reply
Male 273
"We need guns to protect ourselves from the people with guns."

Gotta love that logic... If you need to carry a weapon to feel safe then something is wrong with your society. People that are against gun control have obviously never been to a country where guns are banned...
0
Reply
Male 4,850
This guy was well prepared and articulate. All that was thrown out the window when he brought up the Third Reich in his closing remarks. At that point I bet most of the leaders in the room immediately wrote him off as a nut who lives in a world of fear and conspiracy theories.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@drawman61

So you belive the moon landing was fake, 911 was an inside job and other conspiracies but think the people should hand over their guns and trust the government???
0
Reply
Male 4,850
"People need to find real blame in the real problems. Healthcare costs, oppression, discrimination, egos. These are all products of us as a people, as a society. Our sue happy culture has raised so many costs and prevented people from affording the help they need. We still have to answer "Race" on applications. We, as a society, are making these killers. Not GUNS"

Well said.
0
Reply
Male 329
I love the "well regulated militia vs bad gov argument". I agree with this guy, we don`t have a right to guns for sport. We have a right to them to protect ourselves should our democracy turn dictatorship (and no that hasn`t happened yet).
In the earlier stages of American history it was a very valid argument. Over 200 years later, it`s asinine, if only for the advancement in weapons tech - tanks, planes, missiles, drones, and fullauto guns vs your rifle. Reason #2 for it being stupid is travel no longer requires a horse or boat. You can leave the country as a refugee a lot easier. 3rd is the global protected that is provided by other countries (and no I`m not saying we should rely on the UN for protection).
If the militia argument is the best, then we should allow more weapons into the mix. And require EVERY weapon be stored at a "militia hq"/"gun club". This way we have a chance against bad gov, and we don`t have to worry about the wako with the
0
Reply
Male 946
As always Kitteh, your post does not disappoint. This gentleman has put it succintly. The problem is a societal decay. A moral "dropping of the ball" if you will. It took this man (who did his adopted country proud by the way) to spell it out for everyone. What I did`t like was the fact that the councilmen aren`t even listening to him. They`re more worried about how much time he has left to speak. At least this man came well prepared with his remarks. Kudos to him.
0
Reply
Male 7,774
Here in the UK our idiot teenage and early twenties population already swagger round with their pants round their knees, knives in their pockets and talk gangsta innit. These ridiculous accents are nothing like the areas they grew up in or heard their parents speak. It comes from watching too much American movie and tv. Your culture influences them more than you realise. I can guarantee that if ever guns were allowed here, all hell would break loose. And guess what? They would come back with the same tired excuses you lot come out with to justify why they shoot each other.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
"Just because you CAN have a gun dosen`t mean you need one."

If you don`t have one when you most desperately need it, your next name maybe `Unnamed Victim` on the TV news.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Well said, Mr. Ang.
0
Reply
Male 1,949
Andrew, my Glock is a 10mm - slightly more powerful than the 9mm, but compared to an AR15, considerably less accurate and more difficult to remain accurate when emptying an entire cartridge. Versus someone who has an AR15, I may do more damage with a single shot compared to a .223, but I would lose the gun battle 9 times out of 10.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
"I believe the point is that blades, like stones, are much less effective at killing..... The death counts aren`t even comparable."

Fair enough. Take away guns and people make bombs. If people can make IEDs so easily in Iraq and Afghanistan than I`m sure a person with mental health issues could do the same here. One bomb can be much more "effective at killing" than one bullet.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
I don`t think a total ban would work, but tighter controls would help in a few areas. Your 2nd ammendment does after all refer to a well regulated milita being essential, not just mass ownership with no regulation.

The argument of `we need guns to prevent our government from bullying us` would only make sense to me if the people that said it also agreed to places like Iran and North Korea being able to arm themselves with nukes for the same purpose.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
well put Steelgrid. I have been saying the basic same thing for a good while now. crazy people that want to hurt others will find a way. taking away guns or limiting them will not work. Just as many lives could have been lost in Newtown with the use of a blade or even a blunt object. We need to fix the root cause of the problem, not take away what ever tool may have been used to achieve that persons final result.
0
Reply
Male 1,949
Some countries are very strict with their gun laws, some are not. Some Americans think any tightening of the gun laws will lead to rampant criminal activity, while some believe that doing nothing will lead to a continuation of the existing criminal rampage. America was founded by people that would do anything to protect themselves and families from others, including those in power. Should we not deviate from that path, then we`d better get back to the mindset of what it means to be in a community whence the Constitution was written. Neighbors looking out for neighbors, not shooting them. Students looking out for other students, not shooting them. You can`t have it both ways and the times, they are a` changin`.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
ah, kitteh... I`m disappointed. I didn`t expect this kind of pathetic inflammatory pandering from you.
0
Reply
Male 39,556

[quote]"Just because you CAN have a gun dosen`t mean you need one." [/quote]
Just because YOU don`t need a gun doesn`t mean I don`t.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]People, when they want to go on a mass slaughter for reasons unexplainable, will use whatever is available. Take away the guns, they will use blades, take away blades, and they will use stones. [/quote]
You are correct, however I believe the point is that blades, like stones, are much less effective at killing. Look at the mass stabbings recently, in China and there was one just last weekend I think in Vancouver. Neither of these resulted in a death, iirc. Even the molotov roostertails used by the assailants at Columbine weren`t all ignited when thrown. The death counts aren`t even comparable.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Just because you CAN have a gun dosen`t mean you need one.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
fancythat, your glock is a match for an AR-15. The bullets of a .223 are weaker than 9mm. However, the AR-15 is given an advantage at long distance. The block also has nearly 20 bullets itself and is quicker and easier to reload. There is a reason that almost all gun deaths are hand guns. More deadly bullets, easier to operate.
0
Reply
Male 3,621
guns dont kill people. people kill people. guns just make it a hell of a lot easier.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
I dont really understand the absolute "NEED" for guns. But I also dont understand how people can blame the weapon for mental health issues and results. Its like "Blaming Hotwheels for Car Safety."
0
Reply
Male 40,302
Well said! Backed up by facts, not fantasy. He will be completely ignored by that board and they`ll demand some utterly useless & VERY expensive laws to "fix" the problem.
0
Reply
Male 646
"I am an american by choice"

[applause]

Lol. Well, ain`t nobody forcing him.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
i would like to have a beer with this guy
0
Reply
Male 1,949
meh. So it`s a citizen-led arms race. Great. So, I got *that* to look forward to... My Glock isn`t quite the patch for an AR15, so I guess I`ll have to escalate.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Here`s how I see things.

I am American, I live in St Louis, I like my Motorcycles, Metal Music, and Violent Video games. I do NOT own a gun.

The term "Gun Control" has been so twisted in its meaning that no one can make a full valid argument. But the real argument here isnt really gun control, gun control is a scapegoat. People, when they want to go on a mass slaughter for reasons unexplainable, will use whatever is available. Take away the guns, they will use blades, take away blades, and they will use stones.

People need to find real blame in the real problems. Healthcare costs, oppression, discrimination, egos. These are all products of us as a people, as a society. Our sue happy culture has raised so many costs and prevented people from affording the help they need. We still have to answer "Race" on applications. We, as a society, are making these killers. Not "GUNS"
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Gun Control - An American`s Opinion [Rate Link] - No matter what your view on gun control is, you should watch this.
0
Reply