EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
allecto
328 Posts
| ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-13/Columbine-School-Attack/53084738/1 | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:32 StreetWise wrote: In America, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. That's a common misconception. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, just like the right to free speech. The Constitution does not GRANT these rights, it protects the people from the government taking them away. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote: My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. The problem with that is this belief that automatic weapons, particularly fully automatic assault rifles, are more dangerous because of the volume of people that can be killed is inaccurate. There is a reason that most of these guns come with a burst feature, or are used in a semi-automatic fashion. As someone who owns and uses guns I can say with 100% certainty that if there were a shooting at my school I would be FAR more worried if the person was using a semi-automatic weapon as opposed to a fully automatic one. Anyone with fair experience with firearms can tell you that with some practice you can fire a semi-auto fast enough to not make a substantive difference, but with more accuracy, that a fully-automatic weapon. It's a misconception that has been predicated by Hollywood that automatic weapons are more deadly. Short of an actual machine gun with some sort of bipod, assault rifles are no more deadly than a semi-automatic single fire rifle. Automatic weapons are difficult to aim, each round has less penetrating force, and overall very underused in a fully-auto manner as to avoid barrel rise you're supposed to fire from the hip which makes aiming almost impossible. As for pistols, I can't really give you anything that would change your opinion probably, so I'll leave it at, "I disagree" | ||
|
mahO
France274 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:18 fabiano wrote: If people want to kill, they will find a gun anyway, banning guns would make little to no difference at all. Lol, that is so false in so many countries... Try to find a gun in South Korea, or Japan, it will require you to know some pretty high up gangsters that would personally trust you, AND, in Japan I read that a simple automatic gun could cost 10 000$ on the black market... So no, even in Europe, you must go to a ghetto, find a guy who sells gun (isnt easy at all) and not get jacked by the said guy rofl, nobody takes gun here when murder except people that are involved in crimes, drug sell etc. So no, guns shouldnt be easy to get, USA got this as a tradition, and it is a poison for them... People cant have gun that easily it's crazy how stupid the question even is seriously | ||
|
Trollk
Belgium93 Posts
But I haven't been told that and when I blindly valued media, they didn't scare me. That being said, I do not oppose gun ownership. I just plead for very severe sentences when attempting or actually killing a person and an active policy of making people aware about the consequences of using a gun. Also if you own a gun while having children, you better make sure that your piece isn't lying around. If you can not keep a weapon away from your children, you should not be permitted to have one. Finally, let weapons and ammunition only be sold by specialized shops, who are limited in numbers. Then you actually could keep track of all the legite weapons around. Likewise, owning a weapon without permit also needs to be sentenced severly. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote: Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote: People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them. This is the most common argument I hear, but it isn't really a valid one IMO. It does not justify giving people more efficient (and easier to use) weapons. Sure you can kill a person with a blunt kitchen knife as well as that device, but personally if I were the target, I'd like my chances better if you tried killing me with a kitchen knife. Or a rock. The efficiency and ease of use of a potential weapon absolutely matters and makes for a huge difference. What if we invented a device that could kill a person by pressing a button, with 100% success rate? Would it be acceptable for such a device to substitute guns and made available for anyone to purchase? Firearms belong only in the possession of armed forces, where their use can be properly regulated and controlled. | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:42 Talin wrote: This is the most common argument I hear, but it isn't really a valid one IMO. It does not justify giving people more efficient (and easier to use) weapons. You have it backwards friend, the only thing that cannot be justified is the government taking away our guns. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10341 Posts
| ||
|
Rye.
United Kingdom88 Posts
There are still gun clubs, so sport based shooting still exists. In terms of gangs, yes they have guns, but very few. If you look at some stats.... US Gun Crime (The Guardian) seems like a decent source. But you cant just look at these numbers, as the countries are different. Per population is a good way i think. So .. then compare the populations of countrys. UK=63 million, US=313 million UK 1 murder per 105000 people US 1 murder per 24084 people But thats just murders, when you also include just general gun crime, the difference is even bigger. I think these stats show that a gun ban along with strict gun control ultimately reduces gun crime. BUT!!!! countries are different, we in the UK like the gun ban, we dont really care about owning guns. Americans *i believe* see it as a right. There is no correct answer, its a philosophical thing. To own guns or not??? down to a persons culture. | ||
|
arChieSC2
Spain162 Posts
| ||
|
echO [W]
United States1495 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote: Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. In my humble opinion, the problem with that argument is the idea that hand guns and automatic weapons are used to only kill people in my opinion is a false premise. There are many hobbyist shooters who not only shoot for fun, but for competition and sport. Furthermore, by that logic, plenty of things should be illegal. This may be somewhat of a stretch, but I can easily go online and purchase a real katana right now. katanas are weapons designed to kill people, but just because they were designed for that purpose doesn't mean there aren't other uses and people who enjoy using them as a hobby. There are plenty of dojos where people teach the art of using a katana and cut straw mats, or spar with wooden versions as if they were real swords. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
| ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
Furthermore guns are already widely a available and I see no reasonable way to enforce gun control without massive unrest. The amount of illegal firearms needs to be drastically reduced before the US can consider any kind of gun control. Anyone arguing that crime still happens without guns is obviously mentally challenged though. The crime rate may not fall but the murder rate will drop significantly. I dont know if any of you ever came close to being stabbed or have seen people being knifed down, but I can tell you firing a gun is alot easier and creates a lot less connection to the victim. I have been attacked with a knife and I could still fight back. Attacking someone with a gun is suicide. | ||
|
Trollk
Belgium93 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote: Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? Because it is an international forum that holds a significant amount of its members outside the USA...? | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:42 Talin wrote: This is the most common argument I hear, but it isn't really a valid one IMO. It does not justify giving people more efficient (and easier to use) weapons. Sure you can kill a person with a blunt kitchen knife as well as that device, but personally if I were the target, I'd like my chances better if you tried killing me with a kitchen knife. Or a rock. The efficiency and ease of use of a potential weapon absolutely matters and makes for a huge difference. What if we invented a device that could kill a person by pressing a button, with 100% success rate? Would it be acceptable for such a device to substitute guns and made available for anyone to purchase? Firearms belong only in the possession of armed forces, where their use can be properly regulated and controlled. A sensible plan. However, I personally do not want to live under a government with the kind of control required to round all guns up and hand them over to the armed forces. Besides, missing a single gun could spell disaster, depending on who managed to conceal it and for what use. | ||
|
echO [W]
United States1495 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote: Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? You don't even live in or know anything about America, so stop trying to force your false views of the world down our throats. If you don't like America, don't go America, problem solved. But don't try and tell me how to live my life. What's wrong with having a debate and hearing how people from different sides of the world see things? Are you so offended by other people's opinions that you don't want them to post in this thread? I don't like some of the policies that happen in America either, but I live here, should I leave? | ||
| ||
