Should guns be banned?

[Jaki Stirner]

I would support banning guns as long as that ban applies to police, military, and private security firms. Otherwise, no. It would only serve to enlarge the power imbalance between the governors and the governed. 

[Jack Smith]

.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jack Smith

[Hereno]

I'll take the Aussie example. After the Port Arthur Massacre, we pretty much banned everything other than Rifles and Handguns. The number of deaths by guns is dramatically lower and I seriously believe that tito would still be here if the US had harder gun control. 

 

Who gives a !@#$ if gun deaths go down if all the other murder weapons see increases?

[RedArmy BushMan]

 

I'll take the Aussie example. After the Port Arthur Massacre, we pretty much banned everything other than Rifles and Handguns. The number of deaths by guns is dramatically lower and I seriously believe that tito would still be here if the US had harder gun control. 

 

Who gives a !@#$ if gun deaths go down if all the other murder weapons see increases?

 

Not only this but Aussie land doesn't have land boarders to a nation almost completely taken over by criminals. I assume Aussie land has better port checks. But most of all Aussie land lost all credibility to make good decisions when they started banning games like mortal kombat because you guys think the violence will turn everyone into murders.

[Rumsodx2]

Why would you ban guns? A lot of self-loathing Americans feel the need to blow their brains out in private and you're forcing them to either choke themselves, painfully cut open veins or jump off a high bridge/building with the possibility of scarring an innocent child for life.

[PiratePaul]

I don't think that guns should be banned because one place had lower murder rates, but I do think that there should be background checks.

If I were to buy a gun, the check would show no criminal record and no record of a troubled, violent past.

But what criminal would follow the law anyway?

[WISD0MTREE]

I don't think that guns should be banned because one place had lower murder rates, but I do think that there should be background checks.

 

If I were to buy a gun, the check would show no criminal record and no record of a troubled, violent past.

 

But what criminal would follow the law anyway?

Stop asking the wrong questions. What criminal does follow the law? 

I would support banning guns as long as that ban applies to police, military, and private security firms. Otherwise, no. It would only serve to enlarge the power imbalance between the governors and the governed. 

Military without guns. XD

[RedArmy BushMan]

I don't think that guns should be banned because one place had lower murder rates, but I do think that there should be background checks.

 

If I were to buy a gun, the check would show no criminal record and no record of a troubled, violent past.

 

But what criminal would follow the law anyway?

The problem with background checks is many law abiding citizens have fun in high school/college and being dumb and young could and probably would screw you. Plus we already don't let felons buy guns so we already have them to some extent.

Also these "mass shooters" are what started these people wanting bans but none of them had criminal backgrounds.

 

What we need to do is stop putting blame on inanimate objects, put the blame and responsibility on people, educate people, and get help for people who need help,

Military without guns. XD

 

 

 

It worked during the dark ages why not now?

[WISD0MTREE]

 

I don't think that guns should be banned because one place had lower murder rates, but I do think that there should be background checks.

 

If I were to buy a gun, the check would show no criminal record and no record of a troubled, violent past.

 

But what criminal would follow the law anyway?

The problem with background checks is many law abiding citizens have fun in high school/college and being dumb and young could and probably would screw you. Plus we already don't let felons buy guns so we already have them to some extent.

Also these "mass shooters" are what started these people wanting bans but none of them had criminal backgrounds.

 

What we need to do is stop putting blame on inanimate objects, put the blame and responsibility on people, educate people, and get help for people who need help,

 

[sP] I've had an epiphany! The PLANES caused 9/11! Let's ban them! [/sP]

 

We do need more gun education, it would help a lot. Maybe one or two mandatory classes to buy a gun even to sit around the house. 

[PiratePaul]

 

 

I don't think that guns should be banned because one place had lower murder rates, but I do think that there should be background checks.

 

If I were to buy a gun, the check would show no criminal record and no record of a troubled, violent past.

 

But what criminal would follow the law anyway?

The problem with background checks is many law abiding citizens have fun in high school/college and being dumb and young could and probably would screw you. Plus we already don't let felons buy guns so we already have them to some extent.

Also these "mass shooters" are what started these people wanting bans but none of them had criminal backgrounds.

 

What we need to do is stop putting blame on inanimate objects, put the blame and responsibility on people, educate people, and get help for people who need help,

 

[sP] I've had an epiphany! The PLANES caused 9/11! Let's ban them! [/sP]

 

We do need more gun education, it would help a lot. Maybe one or two mandatory classes to buy a gun even to sit around the house. 

 

Most of those mass shooters had known mental problems, if I read that correctly.

So having background checks for mental problems (major problems, not just insomnia) would be helpful, but not really for criminal pasts.

 

And I am pretty sure those buildings moved into the planes.

[RedArmy BushMan]

Most of those mass shooters had known mental problems, if I read that correctly.

So having background checks for mental problems (major problems, not just insomnia) would be helpful, but not really for criminal pasts.

 

And I am pretty sure those buildings moved into the planes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mental problem needs to be more defined. If someone with depression admits they need help, then goes and gets help and gets help well they are no longer allowed to own something that still brings them joy.

 

And no you see the earth spinning underneath the planes moved the buildings into the path of the planes. It was mother earth that did it.

[Jack Smith]

.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jack Smith

[RedArmy BushMan]

 

 A gun can rattle off 30 rounds give or take 

Let me stop you right there. For most guns that is not even close to the standard and even if they can be adapted to hold that many it is unreliable. A Glock 17 with a double stacked mag can hold 17, a 1911 can hold 8. The only guns that carry that many rounds as a "standard" are "military assault rifles"or whatever the current buzz-word is. My nugget holds 5 rounds that's it. My uncle's sks holds 10. My cousin's FAL holds 20. Guess what all of which are military rifles. 

[Jack Smith]

.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jack Smith

[Jack Smith]

.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jack Smith

[RedArmy BushMan]

My computer is being an idiot so I'll reply without quoting. Ryan Thomas if that is you real name. My point about Australia and video games is that they do it for the same reason they banned guns, they are afraid of it turning their people into murders and criminals. If you can't trust your people with something the rest of the world considers perfectly acceptable recreation then yeah it affects the entire credibility of that nation.

 

And I brought up the issue with mags because it is a statement that is wrong and yet so many people stand behind it. You are also arguing perfect accuracy, every shot is a kill shot, and that I will not be stopped.

 

Do you know what this is?

This isn't a weapon of mass murder. This is my nugget Natasha.

This is my only hobby outside of video games and role playing as The Divine Bush.

I have never killed with it, not man nor beast.

I clean it, I maintain it.

When my friend stabbed his foot with the bayonet it wasn't the bayonets fault it was his fault.

This gun does not cause murders. This gun was the only thing that brought me and my stepfather together. This gun is what I take when me and some relatives get together, because all of us are into guns.

When you shift the blame onto the object and not the person, people get it into their head that the object is the evil one. People get it into their minds that it's not the killer's fault, they think cause he had a gun is why he did it. Yes it may make it easier, but if a mass shooter wants to kill, they'll kill.

If a gang wants to take out their rivals, the will use whatever they can.

The issue isn't guns. The issue is our current society trying to take the blame from people, and put it on things we can't control so that we can feel good when we "ban the evil guns". When we "confiscate the nasty drugs". When we "demonize the corrupt fast food chains" when in reality if we just admitted it was the individuals fault, and got them the help they need, the education they need, then these things wouldn't happen.

Look at Portugal. They legalized all drugs ten years ago. They admitted it wasn't the drugs fault. They spend money helping the drug users. Their drug use has dropped.

[Jack Smith]

.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Rayan Thomas

[WISD0MTREE]

 

My computer is being an idiot so I'll reply without quoting. Ryan Thomas if that is you real name. My point about Australia and video games is that they do it for the same reason they banned guns, they are afraid of it turning their people into murders and criminals. If you can't trust your people with something the rest of the world considers perfectly acceptable recreation then yeah it affects the entire credibility of that nation.

 

And I brought up the issue with mags because it is a statement that is wrong and yet so many people stand behind it. You are also arguing perfect accuracy, every shot is a kill shot, and that I will not be stopped.

 

Do you know what this is?

This isn't a weapon of mass murder. This is my nugget Natasha.

This is my only hobby outside of video games and role playing as The Divine Bush.

I have never killed with it, not man nor beast.

I clean it, I maintain it.

When my friend stabbed his foot with the bayonet it wasn't the bayonets fault it was his fault.

This gun does not cause murders. This gun was the only thing that brought me and my stepfather together. This gun is what I take when me and some relatives get together, because all of us are into guns.

When you shift the blame onto the object and not the person, people get it into their head that the object is the evil one. People get it into their minds that it's not the killer's fault, they think cause he had a gun is why he did it. Yes it may make it easier, but if a mass shooter wants to kill, they'll kill.

If a gang wants to take out their rivals, the will use whatever they can.

The issue isn't guns. The issue is our current society trying to take the blame from people, and put it on things we can't control so that we can feel good when we "ban the evil guns". When we "confiscate the nasty drugs". When we "demonize the corrupt fast food chains" when in reality if we just admitted it was the individuals fault, and got them the help they need, the education they need, then these things wouldn't happen.

Look at Portugal. They legalized all drugs ten years ago. They admitted it wasn't the drugs fault. They spend money helping the drug users. Their drug use has dropped.

*Rayan

 

You make a valid point about a gun's accuracy, but regardless, a gun next to a victim's chest is still 100% accurate no?

A gun is different to a knife. A gun's main purpose is to kill. It is designed to intimidate or kill. You can argue that it is for "target practice" or something other, but the fact of the matter is, that a gun is an instrument of killing or injuring.

The gun may not be inherently evil, but that does not deny the fact that the GUN CAN KILL, IS DESIGNED TO KILL AND WILL KILL IF THE TRIGGER IS PULLED.

 

On the note of Australia and Censorship, I am against the review board as stated before (they are high half the time), but again, this was because a hiccup in the laws did not allow R18+ games in Australia. Now you can freely play the same game here in Aus. as the rest of the world. There is no point to be made here.

 

If the solution here was education, then why does America still have such struggles in terms of gun reform. I believe that if the American government stopped sales of Automatic Assault Rifles, as you mentioned earlier, everyone would riot in the streets claiming a conspiracy and that the Government is gonna control our brains. 

 

I have no issue against your gun, I am fond on weapons, WHEN THEY HAVE JUSTIFICATION. If a farmer needs it to keep pests off, If a man wants to do target shooting, or if someone likes collecting firearms, that's great. But is it really necessary to have Mil-Spec arms and concealed guns? No. I do not. My uncle had a Winchester Rifle, he was proud of it and as you have, took care of it. He didn't gun down people, and I'm fine with that. But what I believe I missed in my previous post, was that Excessive Weaponry is not right or justifiable. I just want to clear that up so that yall don't think I'm some kind of paranoid freak that believes we should all be cotton-wooled. 

 

THE GUN WON'T kill if in the right hands, or pointed at the sky. 

 

18+ games going by who's standard? Most American games are 17+. 

 

We would still have IDEAS no matter what is banned. Also FULLY automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. 

 

The solution IS education. We just need to also educate these politicians that have never touched a gun how to use them. 

 

Invasion. Government tyranny. Genocide. (PLEASE don't say the UN can fix these, cause they are useless)

[Hereno]

 

 

I'll take the Aussie example. After the Port Arthur Massacre, we pretty much banned everything other than Rifles and Handguns. The number of deaths by guns is dramatically lower and I seriously believe that tito would still be here if the US had harder gun control.

Who gives a !@#$ if gun deaths go down if all the other murder weapons see increases?

And who gives a !@#$ about what you think?

Nevertheless, let's answer that statement.

 

 

What a stupid response to me pointing out the lack of logic in your argument. If your goal is making society better, that is generally done with an overall decrease in the murder rate; not an increase in the murder rate but a lower use of guns to kill people.

[Jerry LeRow]

May I add my mustard to this: I'm from Austria, a small country in europe. We have very strict gun laws and if you have a gun there are heavy regulations (I think that even the police comes by when they like and check whether you store the gun right). 

 

Nevertheless, last year we had an incident where one guy shot some people and hid in his house. When the Cobra (like SWAT but more elite) entered his house, they found I think hundreds of weapons. 

 

Also some days ago they found another storage of weapons of another guy.

 

The moral of the story: There are so many guns that gun laws don't really make much sense in my eyes. Yes, Governor Cuomo might see that differently, and he and the other guys on his side are theoretically right too, but the bad guys will also get the guns if they want. If that's the case here in Austria (and believe me I don't know our and your gun laws exactly, but I guess ours are far more stricter than yours), it can happen in America too (where there's ~1 gun per citizen).

 

Taking the guns away from the people who only want them to protect themselves and on the other side sending weapons to arabia, from where they again are sent to syria to be used to kill innocent citizens is, in my (closer to Republicans eyes), a very "Democratic" idea, if you pardon that expression.

 

Yes, the tragedies that happened in America (Columbine, Batman, Sandy Hook,...) are sad, and it requires political action. But I think instead of taking the guns away from the people (what in my eyes means taking them away from the wrong guys as the bad ones will always get their guns) there should be stricter background checks. 

 

Do not mistaken me, I don't share the view of those who want no restrictions on guns. I think Cuomo's plan is a good idea: www.youtube.com/embed/oc74IY1pAeE

He's right in many ways, and yes, those assault rifles should be banned.

 

So summing up my words: stricter background checks, limit the guns (no assault rifles, not more than eg 15 shots), but don't take the normal, hand-held guns away from the normal people who only own them for self-defense.

 

Sadly, I don't think any legislature can control this problem, and that such sad events can't be fully prohibited, as there are so many guns in America it's, in my eyes, not possible any more to control each one of them.

[WISD0MTREE]

no assault rifles.

Assault rifles ARE banned and have been since 1934.

[Keisari Hanssen]

I would just like to throw this out there, based around the fact that the image previously posted pointed out UK handgun regulations. Yes, we have majorly high gun control. When I sought out purchasing a hunting rifle so I could start game hunting without having to use other peoples firearms, I had to fill in a ridiculous number of forms and I'm awaiting a reply from my local police department to see if I qualify to own a single rifle.

 

Now, bearing that in mind, refer to the 2011-2012 crime report for my city. http://www.nottinghamcdp.com/assets/content/documents/Performance__Policy/CDP_Strategic_Assessment_2011_12_FINAL.pdf

 

 

It is only possible to compare gun and knife crime at a Police Force level. In these terms, Nottinghamshire has the 2nd highest rate of gun crime amongst its MSF and the highest rate of knife crime

 

So much for gun control working.

 

I'm all for educating the masses on their use, and regulating it by requiring extensive background checks and some form of psychological checkup, but I'm against banning the ownership of firearms in any way.

[PiratePaul]

 

no assault rifles.

Assault rifles ARE banned and have been since 1934.

 

Assault rifles aren't banned. AR-15s are legal, and so are domestically made Avtomat Kalishnikovs (AK). Automatic weapons of any kind are classified as Type 2. Type 2 is illegal.

[RedArmy BushMan]

Assault rifles aren't banned. AR-15s are legal, and so are domestically made Avtomat Kalishnikovs (AK). Automatic weapons of any kind are classified as Type 2. Type 2 is illegal.

 

 

 

 

 

The AR-15's and AK's we have access to are not assault rifles. They are civilian models of military assault rifles. They are a style.

[Flubb]

 

 

I'll take the Aussie example. After the Port Arthur Massacre, we pretty much banned everything other than Rifles and Handguns. The number of deaths by guns is dramatically lower and I seriously believe that tito would still be here if the US had harder gun control.

Who gives a !@#$ if gun deaths go down if all the other murder weapons see increases?

And who gives a !@#$ about what you think?

Nevertheless, let's answer that statement.

Having a knige or other weapon -while still dangerous- has less capabilities at killing multiple people then a gun. A gun can rattle off 30 rounds give or take while a knife is a melee/close combat weapon. More people would and will die if the criminal has a gun compared to if he had a knife, club, etc.

I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if gun related homicides go down if homicide in general increases. You keep talking about the killing potential of firearms yet fail to provide any evidence that tighter gun control/fewer guns actually decreases homicide rates.