Gun Gontrol

[Andy6000]

The very second amendment to are constitution allows anyone the right to bear arms. Why do you think the founding fathers allowed this? Or thought of this? So, people could go around shooting people? No, it's because by restricting guns you are in a way restricting peoples freedoms. And people don't like it when you take away their freedom. Tougher gun laws and other laws like that really don't do much. It may make it harder for people to obtain guns, but then people will result to other means of getting guns. Illegal means. Guns ain't the problem. Any weapon has the same ability. A person can kill another person without the use of arms. But because a gun can do it easier it should suddenly get stricter laws? I think it's fine the way it is now. If it gets into the hand of a wrong person, well guess what, anyone with a kitchen knife or any household utensil could use the same for a weapon. It's the persons responsibility to handle the gun with care.

That amendment also mentions something about an organized militia. Not just a blanket 'if you want a gun, have one'. Not to mention (note I'm going off of vague memories, I could be wrong), the first couple of amendments (note: amendment means change from the original) were put in to appease states that didn't want ratification. Not because the founding fathers wanted us all to carry guns.

It should be a hell of a lot harder to get a gun. And these 'illegal channels' where you can get guns need to be cracked down on harder than they are now. Importing an AK47 shouldn't be easy. It should get you arrested and put into jail, because there's nothing you can do with an AK47 short of massacre that you can't easily do with a less dangerous firearm.

And yeah, eventually, just getting rid of guns would be super duper, but you know, total idealism there.

EDIT: also guns are dangerous. The one time I've held a gun was because my brother's a jackass and couldn't afford rent because he's a drug addict and so his drug dealer friend moved in with him, and Mr. OC Dealer happened to have a pretty small handgun in one of his shoes. That made me feel safe. Yeah. Super safe. Though protection is kind of necesary where he lived (got evicted a couple weeks ago for being late with rent), since he lived right next to a relatively dangerous neighborhood. But leading up to his drug dealer friend moving in, him and his roomate were fine with a baseball bat, just lying around where it could be gotten to easily. Wee

 

[holloway]

6) All illegal guns taken in by the police need to be destroyed, whether they're a type that's banned or not.

Wait...They're not?! Jesus christ, no wonder people said the cops are a big source of weapons.

 

[Grandor]

EDIT: also guns are dangerous. The one time I've held a gun was because my brother's a jackass and couldn't afford rent because he's a drug addict and so his drug dealer friend moved in with him, and Mr. OC Dealer happened to have a pretty small handgun in one of his shoes. That made me feel safe. Yeah. Super safe. Though protection is kind of necesary where he lived (got evicted a couple weeks ago for being late with rent), since he lived right next to a relatively dangerous neighborhood. But leading up to his drug dealer friend moving in, him and his roomate were fine with a baseball bat, just lying around where it could be gotten to easily. Wee

When it comes to someone having a gun, I don't think you're going to be doing much with a bat. And I agree weapons like that, should be reserved only to the army.

That amendment also mentions something about an organized militia. Not just a blanket 'if you want a gun, have one'. Not to mention (note I'm going off of vague memories, I could be wrong), the first couple of amendments (note: amendment means change from the original) were put in to appease states that didn't want ratification. Not because the founding fathers wanted us all to carry guns.

And yet even though that amendment was added 9/13 voted for ratification.

 

[Andy6000]

And yet even though that amendment was added 9/13 voted for ratification.

The system prior to the Constitution gave the states a lot of power and free rein. A lot of them liked it. The situation was kind of similar to how the Civil War broke out. Federal power before state power, bla bla bla. They added these amendments (and did other things less open) to try and get a passing vote. And they got the passing vote. If they were going for complete majority vote... Well suffice to say, they couldn't and keep with the original plan. Some states just didn't want to go along, since it lessened their powers considerably.

... Why am I even talking about this? Were you trying to say they put that amendment in there because they wanted to rather than what I said? I was arguing as if you were, but I'm not even really sure.

Anyways, Raiju's list is pretty nice. I can't say I'm a fan of any firearm in the home that's semi-automatic though. Even that's pretty dangerous, but I suppose the argument can be made that a shotgun is kind of hard to handle in a 'I'm protecting myself from bad people' situation.

Also what's wrong with a baseball bat? If somebody breaks in with a gun, and they see you, do you think you'll have time to waltz over to where you keep your gun, pull it out, pull out the clip from the other shoe, put it in, turn around, and say, "get out of my house before I cap you?" No, you stand there, you let them do what they want, because they've got a godamn gun pointed at you. The bat is for 'they don't see you, hit them in the back of the head, tie them up and call the police', or at least to make yourself look a little scarier waking up and running out screaming 'get the hell out of my house'.

 

[djzalzer]

How would getting rid of guns fix anything? All you are going to do if that is done is give criminals the assurance that whoever they attack is unarmed (unless, of course, they are carrying around a baseball bat or a knife or something, but from long range that won't help anything). And if somehow all the guns on the planet disappeared, criminals would just take knives, swords, bats, whatever, and commit their crimes with those. And even if all the weapons in the world evaporated, people would fight each other by punching and kicking. No lack of weapons is going to prevent violence.

Besides, if the government took away all the guns, how would the pay people back? I personally own an antique .22-I'd want some form of reimbursement!

 

[Andy6000]

How would getting rid of guns fix anything? All you are going to do if that is done is give criminals the assurance that whoever they attack is unarmed (unless, of course, they are carrying around a baseball bat or a knife or something, but from long range that won't help anything). And if somehow all the guns on the planet disappeared, criminals would just take knives, swords, bats, whatever, and commit their crimes with those. And even if all the weapons in the world evaporated, people would fight each other by punching and kicking. No lack of weapons is going to prevent violence.

Besides, if the government took away all the guns, how would the pay people back? I personally own an antique .22-I'd want some form of reimbursement!

Dude, it's been said in this very thread before: attacking someone with a gun is a lot worse than attacking them with something else. Getting hit in the face with a baseball bat and being knocked out, then having all your shit stolen is a sight better than being shot in the chest and/or face.

Also I dunno about reimbursement, haven't thought on the subject before.

 

[Norris]

At face value, guns should always be discouraged. Guns contribute NOTHING towards the overall ?advancement? of society. All they do is perpetuate an issue that needs no perpetuating. Dealing violence with violence? the hell?

Seriously, with the number of idiots out there, I?d be more worried about my grossly complacent next-door neighbour who holds little regard for proper gun storage. Suppose his 8 year-old kid starts playing cops and robbers with mine, touting around a real 12-guage shotgun his dad failed to properly lock away?

Protecting family my ass. Guns should never be in the hands of such morons especially.

@djzal: Please refer yourself over to here kthxbai!

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

I'm ready to bet there's more guns than books lol, shows how much humanity evolved.

 

[Ceroscuro]

To build schools to accommodate the children of our world would cost billions of dollars.

Every year the world spends trillions on weapons.

 

[djzalzer]

@Andy: So you think with a lack of guns people wouldn't murder anymore? Being hit by a baseball bat can be fatal. There was murder before guns...

 

[Andy6000]

@Andy: So you think with a lack of guns people wouldn't murder anymore? Being hit by a baseball bat can be fatal. There was murder before guns...

I'm not saying nobody would die. But honestly, would you rather get hit in the face with a baseball bat, or a fucking bullet flying fast enough to splatter your brains on the wall. Here's a hint, about 1 in a million survive one and 9 out of 10 survive the other.

Stop thinking in magic black and white and applying it to everyone else's arguments, it's a logical fallacy and would have you thrown out of any respectable debate, and remembered for being a failure.

EDIT: oh and I forgot, while in real life debating people might forget, here what you've said is written, so for fun, people can refer to it. Enjoy.

 

[djzalzer]

Frankly, I don't think it makes any difference what you're killed with; getting killed is getting killed.

"The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22%.." (http://timlambert.org/1997/02/knives-00006/). 78% = 1 in a million?
And:
"The survival rate for patients ... was ... 0% (0 of 26) for those with blunt trauma."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1575299&dopt=Abstract)

With this logic, baseball bats, knives, and even cars should be removed from society as countless people are accidentally and purposefully killed by them as well.

Also, here is a list of people that can't buy firearms:

-Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
-Fugitives from justice
-Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
-Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent
-Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
-Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
-Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
-Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
-Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
(http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm)

It's not more laws that need to be made. What needs to happen is the laws that are already in place need to be enforced.

EDIT: :P It's not as if I have a reputation anywys

 

[Norris]

With this logic, baseball bats, knives, and even cars should be removed from society as countless people are accidentally and purposefully killed by them as well.

Baseball bats hit home runs
Knives help me cook dinner
Cars bring me to work

Guns only inflict bodily harm. Try again

 

[djzalzer]

Baseball bats hit home runs
Knives help me cook dinner
Cars bring me to work

Guns only inflict bodily harm. Try again

Guns hit targets
Guns kill dinner

 

[Norris]

Guns hit targets
Guns kill dinner

So we justify nation wide availability on something that only a limited number of people do?

 

[Buster]

Guns hit targets

Yeah, so that when you're shot at, at least they'll place the bullet more towards the center of the head rather than the jaw. That would just be horrible if killers missed or something.

Guns kill dinner

Yep. Those chickens in the farm have to be shot alright. You don't need to just lead them into a slaughterhouse and chop their heads off or anything, that would be silly.

 

[Rhazdel]

Frankly, I don't think it makes any difference what you're killed with; getting killed is getting killed.

"The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22%.." (http://timlambert.org/1997/02/knives-00006/). 78% = 1 in a million?
And:
"The survival rate for patients ... was ... 0% (0 of 26) for those with blunt trauma."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1575299&dopt=Abstract)

With this logic, baseball bats, knives, and even cars should be removed from society as countless people are accidentally and purposefully killed by them as well.

Also, here is a list of people that can't buy firearms:

-Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
-Fugitives from justice
-Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
-Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent
-Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
-Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
-Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
-Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
-Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
(http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm)

It's not more laws that need to be made. What needs to happen is the laws that are already in place need to be enforced.

EDIT: :P It's not as if I have a reputation anywys

Skewing data is fun.:D

You are exponentially more likely to survive blunt force trauma than a gunshot and with much lower incidents of permanent damage. Getting hit in the arm with a baseball bat will probably break bone. Bone heals. Getting shot can cause permanent nerve damage.

And, just so you know, psychology reports are not included in background checks for firearms. Currenly, only police and government (military) records are used for checks. Only those with a CRIMINAL mental history are pulled in the background checks. Check your link. Data is fed only by law enforcement. Psychology reports are protected information and using them in a background check "violates doctor-patient confidentiality".


Don't try to argue that knives or blunt objects, such as baseball bats, are more lethal than guns. Because they aren't.

 

[Lackluster]

Skewing data is fun.:D

You are exponentially more likely to survive blunt force trauma than a gunshot and with much lower incidents of permanent damage. Getting hit in the arm with a baseball bat will probably break bone. Bone heals. Getting shot can cause permanent nerve damage.

And, just so you know, psychology reports are not included in background checks for firearms. Currenly, only police and government (military) records are used for checks. Only those with a CRIMINAL mental history are pulled in the background checks. Check your link. Data is fed only by law enforcement. Psychology reports are protected information and using them in a background check "violates doctor-patient confidentiality".


Don't try to argue that knives or blunt objects, such as baseball bats, are more lethal than guns. Because they aren't.

I'd rather be shot in the head and die instantly than have my face bashed in with a baseball bat though =|

 

[Andy6000]

Frankly, I don't think it makes any difference what you're killed with; getting killed is getting killed.

"The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22%.." (http://timlambert.org/1997/02/knives-00006/). 78% = 1 in a million?
And:
"The survival rate for patients ... was ... 0% (0 of 26) for those with blunt trauma."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1575299&dopt=Abstract)

With this logic, baseball bats, knives, and even cars should be removed from society as countless people are accidentally and purposefully killed by them as well.

Also, here is a list of people that can't buy firearms:

-Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
-Fugitives from justice
-Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
-Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent
-Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
-Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
-Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
-Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
-Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
(http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm)

It's not more laws that need to be made. What needs to happen is the laws that are already in place need to be enforced.

EDIT: :P It's not as if I have a reputation anywys

Good lord, if you want to try it out so much, ask somebody down at your local gang center. I'm sure someone will be happy to give you the choice of a gun shot to the face vs. a baseball bat.

Seriously, what kind of fucking assinine logic says 'gunshot < hit from blunt object'. Sure getting stabbed in the throat is about as bad if not worse than getting shot in the throat. And getting your windpipe crushed with a pipe is as lethal as getting shot there too. What's the difference then you ask? Well, if I were to hit you in the throat with a pipe, I could NOT swing with all the force my body could muster, and maybe then it wouldn't kill them. With a gun, I can squeeze the trigger, or I can not squeeze the trigger. I suppose that's easier to understand with black and white logic however.

Also, 1 in a million survival is a shot to the fucking head, not ANYWHERE. Learn to read. Not to mention, language like that is usually a hyperbole anyways, though I'd not be surprised to be closer to right with that made up statistic than wrong.

EDIT: also yeah if this person hitting you in the face means to kill you, you're gonna fucking die if you get hit in the face with a bat or a gun. Now, if this person is breaking into your house, is surprised in the dark that you're awake, they'd probably just hit you in the face, run like a little girl and get the hell out of there. Not impossible that'd kill you, but less probable than if mr. robber had a gun and decided to shoot you to get you out of the way.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

those statistics demonstrate only that Americans don't know how to use a firearm lol