Poll: Arm the Victims or Take Away the Gun?
- Thread starter firelightning1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The title makes me think of Fable III.
It's just the wording behind it, I guess :L
OT: Considering if we ban guns we won't be able to rise up against the rogue government if it ever happens (aka the entire reason guns are allowed in the US), keep the guns. I'm not sure with arming the victims, however, a bad case of crazy can happen at any time.
It's just the wording behind it, I guess :L
OT: Considering if we ban guns we won't be able to rise up against the rogue government if it ever happens (aka the entire reason guns are allowed in the US), keep the guns. I'm not sure with arming the victims, however, a bad case of crazy can happen at any time.
I lose a lot of interest in the "arm everybody" idea with one thought: GUNS COST MONEY. Money to buy, money to maintain. Money to learn to use. Money for ammo. I get some of what pro-gun advocates are for, but forgive me for thinking the whole arguement is more about trying to generate billions in new sales for the gun industry than about saving lives. Face it, no one sane thinks loaded weapons should be in the hands of people that text and drive.
Not that I think banning is a plausable idea, but at least I get the logic in trying to keep mass killing devices out of the hands of crazy people without thinking they could MacGuyver a murder spree out of household items. It's not that I don't respect the paranoia about needing them to rebel against the government, (though I think that is a very paranoid idea) but let's face it, an AK won't do much against an army with tanks, predator drones and nukes and the will to use them as a tyranical army would.
Looking at motives is a good idea, but usualy comes from those that want to blame some outside stimuli: aka the evil video game or twinkie made him do it. Far easier than looking at the possibility of some sort of mental breakdown that went undiagnosed, unmedicated and uncared for. That reopens the healthcare debate and puts a lot of onus on us to not overlook someone with issues because we're focused entirely on ourselves.
Not that I think banning is a plausable idea, but at least I get the logic in trying to keep mass killing devices out of the hands of crazy people without thinking they could MacGuyver a murder spree out of household items. It's not that I don't respect the paranoia about needing them to rebel against the government, (though I think that is a very paranoid idea) but let's face it, an AK won't do much against an army with tanks, predator drones and nukes and the will to use them as a tyranical army would.
Looking at motives is a good idea, but usualy comes from those that want to blame some outside stimuli: aka the evil video game or twinkie made him do it. Far easier than looking at the possibility of some sort of mental breakdown that went undiagnosed, unmedicated and uncared for. That reopens the healthcare debate and puts a lot of onus on us to not overlook someone with issues because we're focused entirely on ourselves.
Oh, I like this answer. Better than I could have ever put it. Make this entire post a poll option.ohnoitsabear said:
Guns are used for self defense by law abiding citizens roughly two million times per year in the United States.Aetherlblade said:
[link]http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html[/link]
By keeping people disarmed, they are entirely at the mercy of the government. Would you prefer they were at the mercy of the United States Government? They're not exactly the kind of people I'd want to give a dictatorship to...Spade Lead said:
First of all, it's not a teachers job to be carrying deadly weapons in their class. They're already getting paid peanuts thanks to that oh-so-amazing American education system, now they're supposed to have a second job of class security?
Second of all, stop making this a black and white issue. Most people who want "gun laws" are not talking about taking away all guns and I hate it when people try to paint the issue as that. Making assault rifles illegal is not the same as making ALL guns illegal. People don't need AR-15's to hunt and they don't need them for home defense.
I don't mean to sound insulting to all Americans since I know they aren't all like this but it's amazing to me that in a country where there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens they're reaction to a mass tragedy like is "Wait, clearly we don't have enough guns. We need MORE."
Second of all, stop making this a black and white issue. Most people who want "gun laws" are not talking about taking away all guns and I hate it when people try to paint the issue as that. Making assault rifles illegal is not the same as making ALL guns illegal. People don't need AR-15's to hunt and they don't need them for home defense.
I don't mean to sound insulting to all Americans since I know they aren't all like this but it's amazing to me that in a country where there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens they're reaction to a mass tragedy like is "Wait, clearly we don't have enough guns. We need MORE."
How about a third option?: NOT give any coverage on the sick fuck that made the killings like he was some kind of celebrity among killers.
But of course that wont happen, the news media needs to exploit this and make money out of the tragedy, so they influence more people into killing each other, make a coverage out of it for MOAR money and keep the cycle going.
Oh, and blame whatever is popular and its making more money than them like videogames, rock music and Elvis Presley.
But of course that wont happen, the news media needs to exploit this and make money out of the tragedy, so they influence more people into killing each other, make a coverage out of it for MOAR money and keep the cycle going.
Oh, and blame whatever is popular and its making more money than them like videogames, rock music and Elvis Presley.
+1ohnoitsabear said:
the gun control issue is immensely complex, with guns itself actually being a minor issue compared to a plethora of other major issues which would make tackling guns headfirst not only pointless but impractical and wasteful.
hell, if we can stop the smuggling of illegal goods into our country, that would save a hell of a lot more lives. Less drug crime in general, fewer people messed up on hard drugs killing people for their next "fix", less illegal guns in the country, fewer criminals armed with guns, fewer people dying from hard drugs, less need for people to defend themselves from irrational violent home invaders.
Also, im not for arming teachers countrywide since that is one of the most stressful jobs in our country right now, and the least respected job in our country (garbagemen get treated better and have less stress than teachers)
This. Banning guns would never work in the US. There's just way too many guns circulating as it is, the government wouldn't be able to find them all. They probably wouldn't even be able to find a fourth of the guns that exist throughout the US. Not to mention all of the illegal weapons already circulating (For those who don't know, ANY automatic weapon of any type is illegal, unless you own a special license that is extremely hard to get. You basically can't have even gotten a parking ticket to obtain it. Which basically means that 99% of automatic guns are ALREADY illegal in the US.)DoPo said:
So yeah, there are already quite a lot of illegal firearms in the US, which means that banning firearms altogether would make almost no difference to perpetrators.
But bringing MORE guns into a school is even worse! When chaos breaks out, the last thing you need is another armed gunman who doesn't really know what's going on, surrounded by hundreds of civilians. Unless we turned school security into a military-type force (good luck with that) this would be a disaster!
I could go on, but you get the point.
What we really need is better gun control. Not more laws, but more competetant people/officials working to make sure that people only obtain legal firearms.
How this would happen, I honestly have no idea. But this is what we really need.
Whilst I don't believe that firearms can ever truly be stopped in the United States (and therefore, other means of getting them to stop shooting each other all the time need to be found... Although I've no idea what), I do find it hilarious that so many Americans honestly think the only thing standing between them and oppression is their right to carry guns.
Incidentally, before the 1970s, the 2nd amendment was more widely interpreted as refering to properly formed militias (like the National Guard), it was a massive campaign by the NRA post 1970s that brought around the modern "Charlton Heston" interpretations - Indeed, before the 1930s the NRA was actually one of the biggest proponents of Gun control.
On a final note, I'll say that more guns=more people getting shot, simple as.
An example, is the military - since the threat from Afghan Security forces to ISAF troops has gone up in the last year, American and British troops have started carrying loaded weapons even in rear locations.
Funnily enough, the number of Negligent Discharges, and individuals being wounded or killed by these, has gone up substantially - And this is by trained military personnel who have to conduct mandatory weapons training a minimum of twice a year.
Simple maths really.
Incidentally, before the 1970s, the 2nd amendment was more widely interpreted as refering to properly formed militias (like the National Guard), it was a massive campaign by the NRA post 1970s that brought around the modern "Charlton Heston" interpretations - Indeed, before the 1930s the NRA was actually one of the biggest proponents of Gun control.
On a final note, I'll say that more guns=more people getting shot, simple as.
An example, is the military - since the threat from Afghan Security forces to ISAF troops has gone up in the last year, American and British troops have started carrying loaded weapons even in rear locations.
Funnily enough, the number of Negligent Discharges, and individuals being wounded or killed by these, has gone up substantially - And this is by trained military personnel who have to conduct mandatory weapons training a minimum of twice a year.
Simple maths really.
Never give a teacher a gun. Why? Students are little bastards and given enough time they will get it and shoot someone. That's a ticking time bomb.
If you could actually enforce gun control, its far better for no one to have guns then for everyone to have guns. I'd rather no one have power then everyone live with their finger on the trigger.
That said, why aren't people buying some sort of non-lethal defense measures. Why does everyone immediately go for the gun? Are other weapons seen as so worthless that a gun is the only option? Why doesn't someone invent something better. People are paranoid as shit right now, a new alternative to guns could be quiet profitable. Marketing people, marketing.
If you could actually enforce gun control, its far better for no one to have guns then for everyone to have guns. I'd rather no one have power then everyone live with their finger on the trigger.
That said, why aren't people buying some sort of non-lethal defense measures. Why does everyone immediately go for the gun? Are other weapons seen as so worthless that a gun is the only option? Why doesn't someone invent something better. People are paranoid as shit right now, a new alternative to guns could be quiet profitable. Marketing people, marketing.
Then what is the issue? Because the topic is clearly on whether or not guns should be banned. Also, a bomb doesn't have to go boom. I can make a gas bomb with the chemicals I have under my sink in the kitchen. And you say my argument is "Fox News created". Can you show me when Fox News said anything that I said? Because I detest Fox News, but if they're saying the same thing I am, then we might actually agree on something.invadergir said: