Poll: Guns, are they good or bad?
- Thread starter chinese_democracy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
okay, so that only solves half the security problem, shame you would want people to be put in danger because we cant have a gun with us elsewhere.titanium turtle said:
just to let you know, despite what you were probably told, you cant just walk into a pawn shop, buy a weapons permit for 5 bucks, and leave, there is a process, and it is meant to separate people like me, from people who are looking to do some crime, of course, if you are going to commit a gun crime, you arent going to bother getting a permit for the gun, now are you?
kinda like making masks illegal in florida,because it would allow you to rob a bank
because no, the robbers, who are already ROBBING A BANK, wouldnt want to break the "dont cover your face" law, now would they?
The question "are guns good or bad" is ridiculously limiting, you may as well have asked "are knives good or bad?" or, "is fire good or bad?"
It's completely dependant on context and use.
It's completely dependant on context and use.
The way I see it is, guns or no guns mankind WILL find a way to harm and kill each other, (especially in manchester and other large cities) the question on this topic here might as well be "Rocks, are they good or bad?" because humans will never stop killing, violence will always find a way.
To quote fallout 3 "War, war never changes."
To quote fallout 3 "War, war never changes."
I don't really know how it is in the lower 48, but I live in Alaska, up around the central area. I very much enjoy wild game, and I do not care to learn how to shoot bows and arrows (read: do not care to make the menfolk learn how to shoot bows and arrows, since I don't really have a desire to hunt with guns much either, but I do like them hunting!). So at least for those of us in the bush with too many stubborn moose and idiotic rabbits, I'd prefer to keep the guns. 
Of course I would say that guns are perfectly OK, but I might be a bit biased.
Crime invariably happens, with or without guns. When stabbings first happened, do you think the great civilizations of the world gave a shit? Did they start making swords illegal? Of course not. The problem with guns is only that they're readily accessible now, which is why we should avoid banning them outright and instead focus on getting rid of illegal transport or purchase.
The only problem I see with guns is kids getting their hands on them, which is much more of an issue with adults storing their guns in their own homes than with guns themselves.
Crime invariably happens, with or without guns. When stabbings first happened, do you think the great civilizations of the world gave a shit? Did they start making swords illegal? Of course not. The problem with guns is only that they're readily accessible now, which is why we should avoid banning them outright and instead focus on getting rid of illegal transport or purchase.
The only problem I see with guns is kids getting their hands on them, which is much more of an issue with adults storing their guns in their own homes than with guns themselves.
I live in the UK and our justice system is pritty much messed up, however one of the only things we seem to get right these days is our laws against guns.
The fact is if you own a gun your more likely to shoot yourself or a member of your family than be shot by an intruder or a criminal.
The fact is if you own a gun your more likely to shoot yourself or a member of your family than be shot by an intruder or a criminal.
Guns don't kill people, wappers doooo
I'm a wapper and I might kill youuuu...
Serioulsy now, I live in the UK and I really don't care about US gun laws, although I reckon as gun ownership and use is so widespread amongst the criminal element in the US (if I understand things correctly) that there is a good case for civilian ownership as a form of protection.
I'm a wapper and I might kill youuuu...
Serioulsy now, I live in the UK and I really don't care about US gun laws, although I reckon as gun ownership and use is so widespread amongst the criminal element in the US (if I understand things correctly) that there is a good case for civilian ownership as a form of protection.
A tool can't be good or bad. Only the person who uses it.
Anyone who claims that weapons are "evil" because they're designed to kill stuff has clearly led a sheltered existence. Try being trapped in your home by a large animal (or lots of vicious small animals!), then tell me that weapons should be banned.
The very real fact is that life is not all sunshine and lolly pops. The sooner this latest generation realizes that, the better.
Anyone who claims that weapons are "evil" because they're designed to kill stuff has clearly led a sheltered existence. Try being trapped in your home by a large animal (or lots of vicious small animals!), then tell me that weapons should be banned.
The very real fact is that life is not all sunshine and lolly pops. The sooner this latest generation realizes that, the better.
I suppose sohcig said:
but if there are lots of guns, keeping tabs of black markets for them will be difficult
if you have a clean record, you buy a load of guns then lose your job, you may sell them- In our country only the police and army have guns- criminals rarely can get a gun but in America keeping tabs on that amount of guns would be difficult, some would leak out, and hey they may go to get a permit, or they may just buy one illegally
Bit late but I haven't been on escapist for a while.Foggy_Fishburne said:
But Gandhi was AGAINST gun control
??Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.??
? Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446
Lookit that.
The 2nd Amendment was added to protect CITIZENS from the GOVERNMENT. That is the ONLY argument that matters. When a populace that cannot defend itself from a governing body as large and powerful as the United States government, you WILL end up with tyranny.
??Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States??
? Noah Webster, 1888
??Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands???
? Patrick Henry
History repeats itself. This has been shown time and time again. To try and state otherwise is to show the world that you're a fool.
Bring it on, asshole, I can do this all day. Or month, as it seems to be.
Edit:
LOOK! I found another one!
This one's from your old buddy, Adolf Hitler!
??The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.??
-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
