Politics guns in america

I had my facts messed up. Oh well.


Reguardless of that, in an American society, outlawing something has never eliminated it as a problem in society. Alcohol and drugs are the only modern expamples of this and they are widespread.
 
Actually drugs were much more widespread when they were legal. After the Harrison Act (i think) drugs have much more of a stigma.

I don't think there widespread in the same way either. I'm sure there are millions of people who would never touch them because their illegal and will cease to carry a gun if they became illegal.
 
Why is it bad that law abiding people don't carry a gun ebcasue it is illegal???

You never said anything about a criminal fearing to use a gun because its illegal, you just made the main point aginst gun control: It only takes guns out of people who follow the law.
 
I'm not an advocate of taking guns completely out of the hands of law abidings citizens. That's not going to solve anything, but there need to be much stricter laws on how you can aquire weapons and where you can use them legally. We have to put up a stronger filter to drain out those who would want to use guns for malevolent purposes. If we make it more diffficult to aquire weapons then yes crimes would drop.
 
i think that we should have guns... now stuff like Columbine or Red Lake will happen (it's a tragedy i know), but think about it. there are people in this world who want to kill. and it doesn't matter how they do it. so what are we going to ban rope cause you can hang someone with it. are we going to ban silverwere, cause you can stab someone with it. are we going to ban shoelaces cause you could strangle someone with it. are we going to ban hands cause you can beat someone to death?
 
Osiris said:
i think that we should have guns...  now stuff like Columbine or Red Lake will happen (it's a tragedy i know),  but think about it.  there are people in this world who want to kill.  and it doesn't matter how they do it.  so what are we going to ban rope cause you can hang someone with it.  are we going to ban silverwere, cause you can stab someone with it.  are we going to ban shoelaces cause you could strangle someone with it.  are we going to ban hands cause you can beat someone to death?
[post="1295176"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​



That's rather ridiculous. I mean, sure you can stab someone to death with a fork...but you can kill so many more people in a manner of minutes when using a gun.

You can kill someone with just about anything...but the point is, you can do it a lot faster and more efficiently with a gun...and we need to have stricter gun control laws to help prevent that.
 
AliasHombre said:
So, only people that drink get killed by drunk drivers.  Right?
[post="1292229"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
You don't punish someone for drinking. You throw them in jail for driving drunk.

Don't punish people for the stupid things they do to themselves, punish them for the things that actually do harm society.
 
Spike said:
I'm not an advocate of taking guns completely out of the hands of law abidings citizens. That's not going to solve anything, but there need to be much stricter laws on how you can aquire weapons and where you can use them legally. We have to put up a stronger filter to drain out those who would want to use guns for malevolent purposes. If we make it more diffficult to aquire weapons then yes crimes would drop.
[post="1294562"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I completely agree... (y)
 
Spike said:
I'm not an advocate of taking guns completely out of the hands of law abidings citizens. That's not going to solve anything, but there need to be much stricter laws on how you can aquire weapons and where you can use them legally. We have to put up a stronger filter to drain out those who would want to use guns for malevolent purposes. If we make it more diffficult to aquire weapons then yes crimes would drop.
[post="1294562"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Thats all dandy in a perfect world, but theres no way to give good peole guns and take them away from bad people.


I believe that any law-abiding citizen of this country shuold be allowed to own, and if trained properly, carry a gun if they feel safer with one. Personally, I would never get one becasue i feel 100% safe where i live, at school, traveling, and even when I happen to be in downtown Detroit.
 
Not everyone is you AliasHombre, a lot of people may not have the same self control or fearlessness that you say you have. A lot of people would feel safe with a gun with them at all times. However, what you're proposing are steps to anarchy. We can't allow everyone to carry weapons just because they feel safe with them. You're going to endanger cops and other innocent people. Then comes the fact that you can't exactly identify who has malevolent intentions and who is truly a law abiding citizen. Therefore we need stricter laws about who can acquire weapons. More extensive background checks and more disqualifying prior offenses. Then the federal government needs to pass bans on all assault rifles. Steps have to be made to protect every citizen before we uphold anyone's "pursuit of happiness".
 
I am not advicating giving everyone a gun say, when they get their drivers liscense. Any sane person understands the needs for extensive background checking and training for handgun use. The practicality of carrying around an assault rifle defeats its purpose, so i don't think thats something law abiding people would really want to own, therefore that leaves people who will do wrong with their assault rifles, therefore they need to be controlled, clearly.

You say we need "stricter laws". Please clarify your statement as their would be two kinds of people, people eligioble for a gun, and those not eligible. Where do you draw the line?

Finally, a philosophical difference seperates people as some people don't really trust the governemnt (in its current state) for domestic secutiry, so they so they think they shoudl be able to own handguns for personal piece of mind.
 
Guns shouldn't be legal anywhere for anyone.. the fact is, the more guns there are, the more innocent people die. A criminal feels threatened by a person with a gun and if for example a criminal is breaking in to a house, there is a much greater possibility that he shoots someone if he know the family have a gun. There are not one single thing to support having a gun. Lots of people die each year after a mentally ill person shoots someone in his or her own family just after having an argument. This wouldn't happen if you can't have guns. The way US handle the gun issues is actually one reason why I'm a little scared of going to the US. I wouldn't feel calm walking in the street knowing that anyone could shoot me..even at the mall. So many people die each year in the US compared to countries with stricter gun control. It's scary :blink:
 
IsabellaOfSweden said:
A criminal feels threatened by a person with a gun and if for example a criminal is breaking in to a house, there is a much greater possibility that he shoots someone if he know the family have a gun.
[post="1302578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Actually I disagree. My friend's house was almost broken into a couple of years ago. Her father got out his shotgun, and the guy was running for his life in a less than a second.

And before you say a criminal is more threatened by a gun and shoots people because of this, could I have a link or website that proves that in some way?
 
Thats not true. In Britain at least many burglaries are committed by drug addicts. So if they are low and need a fix, they will do anything. You can be sure they would use a weapon on you before you use one on them/
 
So in that case, why not have a weapon so you could have some chance of defending yourself? If they would do anything for a fix, they might shoot you even if you didn't have a gun...but usually criminals want to avoid making a scene and getting caught.
 
Guns kill people. People with guns kill people. If the conservatives can't see that than that's their problem, but as long as they run America, Americans will suffer from the lack of safety here.
 
You do know that for the 40 years after WWII, democrats and only democrats ran this counrty. In fact, until pretty much 1994, the republicans never had a big advantage in power, the same year as the brady bill.
 
AliasHombre said:
You do know that for the 40 years after WWII, democrats and only democrats ran this counrty.  In fact, until pretty much 1994, the republicans never had a big advantage in power, the same year as the brady bill.
[post="1306189"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I wouldn't say they had a big advantage in power. We had a Democrat as President, and a Democratic controlled Congress...



But since you seem to think there was a Republican advantage in power and they're the ones who caused the Brady Bill, then does that mean you agree with it?
 
Back
Top