Gun laws.
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm trying to keep from derailing a thread about storylines or whatever the other one was about, yes. This is an interesting debate, and so is the other one. Keeping both in the same thread would just end up with two nice debates being locked.
Think of is a conversation starter. Sure, I could have created the thread with just a short mention of the earlier conversation, or with just my argument in it, but doing it like this gives a bit of background to the conversation. Since it's a subject I find interesting and that I think can lead to giving debates I thought it better to start a topic about it so that anyone can chip in instead of just discussing it via pm.
Think of is a conversation starter. Sure, I could have created the thread with just a short mention of the earlier conversation, or with just my argument in it, but doing it like this gives a bit of background to the conversation. Since it's a subject I find interesting and that I think can lead to giving debates I thought it better to start a topic about it so that anyone can chip in instead of just discussing it via pm.
And if everybody had guns would you really want to live there then? Then it just takes one person that loses their temper and someone else (and that person) is most likely dead. If people are unclear about who started shoooting first they might shoot the next gunman, and the next. There's a reason we don't let people take the law into their own hands. Bad things happen, like the moronic texas guy in the article for example.
And yeah, the V-tech shooting might not have been as bad, first one person gets killed and everyone realises something bad is going on, the guilty person is also shot, and a few people is killed in the crossfire. The point isn't that it might stop earlier. The point is that it wouldn't happen at all if guns weren't so common.
And yeah, the V-tech shooting might not have been as bad, first one person gets killed and everyone realises something bad is going on, the guilty person is also shot, and a few people is killed in the crossfire. The point isn't that it might stop earlier. The point is that it wouldn't happen at all if guns weren't so common.
America was built on guns and has a big industry of penis extenders i mean weapon factory's.So if it was restricted america would overall lose money and a lot of people would be out of jobs.Silvertounge said:
And I'd also like to know how that is a valid argument. Crashing 200 cars on the freeway causes a lot of work oppurtunities, a lot of extra income and taxes. On paper it looks great for the economy (except for private persons or insurance companies), but is it worth it?
Need i name gun company's from America? Well besides the fact that mining company's, electric company's would be hurt. But big corperations Smith & Wesson the largest US handgun producer would be serverly hurt by this ruger, remington would be hurt but not as bad. Over sea gun producers would feel the pain too and this would just spike crime even more when people start smuggling guns into the country.
I think the major problem is the actual attitude to guns in America, where you can't mention guns without "right" and "defence" enterting the damn sentence. The plain reason for gun violence in America is the brutish outlook on guns IN America.
In Sweden, guns are hunting tools, providing fine meat for a carnivorus hunter. America? "It's the people's rights! We needs our guns to murder pedos, joggers and anyone who might be climing through a window!"
I would suggest that perhaps an intelligence test and a "need vurses want" test be applied to each person attempting to purchase a gun. A person seeking to hunt deer with a .223 rifle is alright, but a redneck seeking to scare off people who have different sexual tastes? That's a whole different story.
In Sweden, guns are hunting tools, providing fine meat for a carnivorus hunter. America? "It's the people's rights! We needs our guns to murder pedos, joggers and anyone who might be climing through a window!"
I would suggest that perhaps an intelligence test and a "need vurses want" test be applied to each person attempting to purchase a gun. A person seeking to hunt deer with a .223 rifle is alright, but a redneck seeking to scare off people who have different sexual tastes? That's a whole different story.
It would be impossible. People run the goverment and it the supreme court judges arn't bribed and actually have a neutruel opinion then that means the goverment is destorying the constitution and this would not be america this would be more like a communist country. A country where the goverment controls the people.Booze Zombie said:
Hahahahaha. The constitution is a really old document full of stupid outdated laws. And disallowing people to have guns has NOTHING to do with communism. People who reason that way is what is wrong with America today, and what has turned it, wait a minute, America has never been good, that has kept America from evolving like the rest of the world. That has kept America from advancing. There's a bloody reason almost all famous serial killers come from that country. America is a horrific country, an example of what happens when a country goes bad. A warning to the rest of the world.
It wouldn't be impossible. It happens every day in the rest of the world. The parts that it seems are marked as "here be dragons and communists" on American maps.
It wouldn't be impossible. It happens every day in the rest of the world. The parts that it seems are marked as "here be dragons and communists" on American maps.
If you wish to imply a negative context, then you mean a STALINIST country, Communism is pretty solid actually.
The "Right to bear arms" comes from the times of old, when millita were needed to (potentially) defend the "homeland" and the crown. The country that America copied this "right" for "bearing arms" from has not used it for around 400 years.
Which is to say, Britain-land ain't got many guns or any real reason to have them, either.
The "Right to bear arms" comes from the times of old, when millita were needed to (potentially) defend the "homeland" and the crown. The country that America copied this "right" for "bearing arms" from has not used it for around 400 years.
Which is to say, Britain-land ain't got many guns or any real reason to have them, either.
Silvertounge said:
Do i need to list off important things that america invented? No i cound't because the list is terribly long but heres a few tidbits. Your cotten materials in your house would be more costly if there was no cotten gin, You would have no refrigerator, Your grain foods would cost more if there was no reaper. Sowing machines, Telegraph( It was being devolped else where but a American inventor created it first), Anesthia was used in america first so without it you would be gagged during your operations and you would feel a whole lot more pain..Toilet paper, Burgular alarm, telophone, skyscrapers, assembly line(Which makes cars insanely cheaper and many other items), The airplane, Band-aids,Defibulators, The microwave it just keeps coming and heres a source to back it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_inventions
EDIT: Sorry for the threadjack i'm leaving this alone just making a point that america has made a great use to modern society.
Ohhh my.
Okay, so you're positing that the reason for gun violence is lax gun control.
So why is it that the murder capital of North America is Washington, D.C., where, up until literally days ago, that state had the most restrictive gun laws in all of the U.S.?
Please. Just stop trying to blame guns. It's easy to do, but it solves nothing. Look at the UK: they banned handguns entirely, and handgun crime went up. And now there are so many stabbings that they're banning knives. Carrying utility knife that no one in Canada would give a second thought could get you arrested in the UK, but that hasn't cut down on crime.
The real issue here is socio-economics. Washington D.C. is immensely violent, and also one of the most impoverished cities in America. In Switzerland, every male aged 19 to late 30s has a fully automatic assault rifle, issued to him by the military, in his home - so why isn't there rampant slaughter in Switzerland?
Gun control has not ever successfully cut down on violent crime. Ever. Not the AWB of 1994, not gun registration in Canada, not bans in UK and Australia. What does cut down on crime is investment in public works and education.
Please think about things like that before you make baseless accusations, otherwise you're as bad as the Western world's wildly sensationalist and irresponsible media.
Okay, so you're positing that the reason for gun violence is lax gun control.
So why is it that the murder capital of North America is Washington, D.C., where, up until literally days ago, that state had the most restrictive gun laws in all of the U.S.?
Please. Just stop trying to blame guns. It's easy to do, but it solves nothing. Look at the UK: they banned handguns entirely, and handgun crime went up. And now there are so many stabbings that they're banning knives. Carrying utility knife that no one in Canada would give a second thought could get you arrested in the UK, but that hasn't cut down on crime.
The real issue here is socio-economics. Washington D.C. is immensely violent, and also one of the most impoverished cities in America. In Switzerland, every male aged 19 to late 30s has a fully automatic assault rifle, issued to him by the military, in his home - so why isn't there rampant slaughter in Switzerland?
Gun control has not ever successfully cut down on violent crime. Ever. Not the AWB of 1994, not gun registration in Canada, not bans in UK and Australia. What does cut down on crime is investment in public works and education.
Please think about things like that before you make baseless accusations, otherwise you're as bad as the Western world's wildly sensationalist and irresponsible media.