Gun laws
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
Anyone and their dog can get a gun in USA.
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
thatbloke
Junior Administrator
It's not the guns that kill people, it's the wielders of those weapons.
There are safety rules in place that are there to prevent guns from being mistreated... as long as those rules are followed I see no problem with allowing people to have guns...
(and yes I know this is controversial!!!)
There are safety rules in place that are there to prevent guns from being mistreated... as long as those rules are followed I see no problem with allowing people to have guns...
(and yes I know this is controversial!!!)
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
If guns are illegal except to hunters and farmers alike it makes it alot harder for the mental dip-shits to get their hands on the guns and massacre a bunch of innocent people.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
What do farmers need guns for anyways? And today we don't need hunters anymore ---> all weapons (at least all ranged, knives are necessary in everyday life)should be banished, I know that this is utopia, but hell I don't care, this would be the best solution for humanity!
Sephiroth
In Cryo Sleep
ok so you take away the gun dragon, so then when people are being knifed what do you expect the police to do with no fire arm? run up to this psyco stabbing every direction to beat him with a stick?! and then you got the military who also need guns 
nuclear weapons are kept to keep the peace, some think they dont but hey! if the military got no guns then what you thinks gunna happen then? yes every country in the world might say ok and destroy their guns but rebels/terrorists probably wont
nuclear weapons are kept to keep the peace, some think they dont but hey! if the military got no guns then what you thinks gunna happen then? yes every country in the world might say ok and destroy their guns but rebels/terrorists probably wont 
Taffy
New Member
Na I agree.
Look at the following photos: which is more threatening?
OR
It's not the weapon thats dangerous, it's the way it's used. Plenty of people have been killed or permanantly damaged by blows to the head over the years, probably more than those that have been killed by firearms. Yet everyone frets so much about guns. We can't just ban anything that can be seen as dangerous. That way, we'd have to ban everything from guns to dining forks. And even one's own hands.
Dragon
Well-Known Member
Back to the stone age then! Just some rocks and treebranches and everything is fine ...
Maybe then we will have a rather peaceful time ... until the next guns are produced.
But honestly what gives a soldier the right to bear a gun when a normal civillian is not allowed to carry one? If the soldier now goes nuts, the civillian cannot defend himself, so we give him a gun, too. What has happened now is that we have doubled the chance of somebody going nuts with a gun. I admit this sounds illogical and is very exagerated, but I want to give you the idea of how this "system" works. Quite the opposite would happen if we took the gun away from the soldier. He still might go nuts and try to beat the "civillian", but this time the chance of a homicide in a body fight is much lower than if he fires a whole clip of M4 rounds into his opponent.
The only problem about this is that we would have to get rid not only of all guns in one country but of all guns everywhere in the world so a "centralization of gunpower" cannot be created.
Albert Einstein said:
Maybe then we will have a rather peaceful time ... until the next guns are produced.
But honestly what gives a soldier the right to bear a gun when a normal civillian is not allowed to carry one? If the soldier now goes nuts, the civillian cannot defend himself, so we give him a gun, too. What has happened now is that we have doubled the chance of somebody going nuts with a gun. I admit this sounds illogical and is very exagerated, but I want to give you the idea of how this "system" works. Quite the opposite would happen if we took the gun away from the soldier. He still might go nuts and try to beat the "civillian", but this time the chance of a homicide in a body fight is much lower than if he fires a whole clip of M4 rounds into his opponent.
The only problem about this is that we would have to get rid not only of all guns in one country but of all guns everywhere in the world so a "centralization of gunpower" cannot be created.
I'm sorry Seph to be that harsh but in my opinion that is nonsense. If you want to compare a knife wielding criminal with a knife wielding police, the "gun-comparison" would be a criminal with a fully automatic rifle or a SMG, and I think we don't have to start a discussion what is more dangerous to the policemen, a knife wielder (btw, Pepperspray has a larger range than a knife wielding arm, if you know how to use is correctly and it is, under normal circumstances, not lethal) or a gun shooter.Sephiroth said:
Sephiroth
In Cryo Sleep
Dragon, you seem to have forgotten the term "black market" its easy enough to illegally buy weapons when alchol was banned in america it still found its way there, the same can be said for weapons... you disarm everyone and then some bloke grabs a rifle or whatever and that is realisitic it can happen and you know it.
As a bonus, the military is trained (well not the american ones but...) they should therefore be better then your average guy in fights with guns or whatever.
Give a civillian a gun and your making him a target and your also giving him the power to target others, sure the same can be said with anything that you can be hurt with but how often will you see some dude running after another weilding a spoon? or spade (note i just wanted to say spoon)
and theres bound to be a country that refuses to give up guns, what you want to do then? call america in and say "they got oil and nuclear weapons get em"
and that is realisitic it can happen and you know it. As a bonus, the military is trained (well not the american ones but...) they should therefore be better then your average guy in fights with guns or whatever.
Give a civillian a gun and your making him a target and your also giving him the power to target others, sure the same can be said with anything that you can be hurt with but how often will you see some dude running after another weilding a spoon? or spade (note i just wanted to say spoon)
and theres bound to be a country that refuses to give up guns, what you want to do then? call america in and say "they got oil and nuclear weapons get em"
Dragon
Well-Known Member
"Homicide using a spoon" xD Yeah that is exactly why I said that the problem concerning this plan is that you cannot get rid of all guns. Oh and btw ... I don't think that you can call in America to get rid of themselves ... as they are allready doing that while we post. ^^
PsiSoldier
Well-Known Member
Hunting is a sport, which uses guns, which is why they're allowd guns.
Farmers can have guns so they can shoot pests on their land munching their crops (Animals, not hungry-vegetarian-homeless-people.)
Letting ANYONE have a firearm is, lets say, stupid.
Letting people that need them for a good reason (IE, farmers, hunters, police, etc)
You say "if you take their guns they'll stab you with knives.", but you seem to miss the point a gun is more deadly than a knife (Killing over range (unless your a ninja with throwing knives)).
All in all, PC > Mac.
EDIT: Also, let's remember the founders of America made the whole "everyone can have a gun!" thing when they had weapons that fired, say, 1 shot per 30sec? Not bloody MAC10s firing 100 shots in 30sec.
Farmers can have guns so they can shoot pests on their land munching their crops (Animals, not hungry-vegetarian-homeless-people.)
Letting ANYONE have a firearm is, lets say, stupid.
Letting people that need them for a good reason (IE, farmers, hunters, police, etc)
You say "if you take their guns they'll stab you with knives.", but you seem to miss the point a gun is more deadly than a knife (Killing over range (unless your a ninja with throwing knives
)).All in all, PC > Mac.
EDIT: Also, let's remember the founders of America made the whole "everyone can have a gun!" thing when they had weapons that fired, say, 1 shot per 30sec? Not bloody MAC10s firing 100 shots in 30sec.
To all the guys saying "it's not the weapon that's dangerous" etc:
Where would you draw the line? should people be allowed to have bombs? Tanks? Nukes? And why draw a line at all?
Also, the black market argument doesn't work that well either. If there's more guns in general, then it's easier to get hold of one on the black market. If a criminal REALLY wants a gun, obviously he or she is going to get one. But why make it easy?
Where would you draw the line? should people be allowed to have bombs? Tanks? Nukes? And why draw a line at all?
Also, the black market argument doesn't work that well either. If there's more guns in general, then it's easier to get hold of one on the black market. If a criminal REALLY wants a gun, obviously he or she is going to get one. But why make it easy?
I believe the point about the right to bear arms is nothing to do with the state of firearms and everything to do with the citizens' right to overthrow their government if they feel their government has become a tyranny.
US Constitution Second Amendment said:
(Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm)
In that respect, it's a matter of proportional firepower and the ability of the populace to make their government fear them and thereby ensure that the government continues to act in their interests. Or so they'd hope.
