Try to make my guns sentient and have them see me as their parental figure. As the officers take them away they will scream "Why are you taking me away from my daddy?" It would be hilarious.
Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...
- Thread starter mattttherman3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wonder if the people who said they would kill are religious. It would be interesting to know.
So giving easy acess to easily controlable weapons of high power to both the criminals and mentally unstable is working as intended?Ryotknife said:
I am not against banning sports cars.launchpadmcqwak said:
Large dogs, or rather, certain dog species that are known to be agressive and little-minded are banned and/or strictly regulated in some countries.
yet in america such dog species are now suddenly "Their inheritance" even though barely anyone knew of their existence 50 years ago.
As for cars, americans like to ride in their 20l engine hummers instead, not only doing more damage in crashes than any sportscar but also creating polution and eating up oil.
Its not that the other items arent bad, its that americans are obsessed with "big power agressive" things.
Let's say for a second I do own a gun. I personally would go with the option "Other", because the only guns I'd own would be mounted on this thing:
http://darkfaktor.com/sistema/data/upimages/subfolders/MechWarrior/mechwarrior-project-20090708042630559.jpg
You wanna take my AR-15's, go right ahead. In England, I don't think even the patrol cops carry guns. The rate of gun deaths there is drastically lower than in the US, and I think there's certainly a connection.
You wanna take my AC-20's..... Good luck.
http://darkfaktor.com/sistema/data/upimages/subfolders/MechWarrior/mechwarrior-project-20090708042630559.jpg
You wanna take my AR-15's, go right ahead. In England, I don't think even the patrol cops carry guns. The rate of gun deaths there is drastically lower than in the US, and I think there's certainly a connection.
You wanna take my AC-20's..... Good luck.
Hunting is a nessessary economic and cultural facet of many rural communities. Just because you city/suburb-folk live in a fairy-tale land of plenty does not mean it is the case throughout the country. Many people here in Canada use hunting as their primary means of food and/or income. Who is going to pay for their livelihood when their firearms are taken away?TopazFusion said:
Furthermore, our Department of Natural Resources relies heavily on civilian firearm owners to enforce ecological culls (eg. coyote population grows too large and threatens the local prey populations, hunters are given $20 per coyote pelt). Who is going to pay for hiring all these new Forestry Officers when the local population cannot help out?
Many people in my community feel safer traveling in the woods with a firearm. The threat of being attacked by a bear or cougar (recently coyotes have actually started attacking people too) is very real. Should these people be deprived of the wonders of nature / the resources of their own land (eg. logging) simply becasue they have no effective means to defend themselves against an attack? Again, who is going to pay for hiring the legion of Forestry Officers required to counteract the loss of civilian firearm ownership?
Lastly, here is a story for you. Several years ago, my step-father woke up in the middle of the night with chest pain. This persisted for several minutes, so my mother decided to call 911. We live in a rural area approximately 15 mins from the closest hospital. It took 35 mins from when the call was made for the paramedics to find our house (civic address is clearly marked) collect their equipment and start assessing/treating my step-dad. Turns out he was not having any sort of cardiac issue, but if he was the damage to his myocardial tissue would have been permanent due to the long interval of time before he recieved definitive care (thrombolytics for a real heart attack) at a hospital.
Anyways, my point is the government cannot protect every citizen at all times. If a someone broke into our house with intentions to do us harm, it would be at least 15 mins before a police officer could make it on scene. If armed, the intruder could murder us, arrange our corpses around the breakfst table and still have time to dash off into the woods before the cops arrive. Why should my family be defenseless? It is unlikely that this situation would occur, but still very possible. Quite frankly, I really don't give a shit about mass shootings or violent crime elsewhere in the country if the solution puts MY loved ones at risk of a violent death..and guess what a hell of a lot of other firearm owners feel the same way.
Your whole post reeks of the sort of prejudiced uninformed anti-rural attitude that comes from many gun control advocates. Hunting and the shooting sports form a significant part of our communities, it would be a great slight against us to have these activities banned. My country has no constiutional right to bear arms so I cannot comment, but I really see nothing wrong with an armed citzenry provided that proper education is put in place.
Right back at those of you outside the States that fantasize about rewriting our Constitution (I don't suppose you'd like Americans to take a red marker to your own) and want our rights revoked. Is that not scary?wombat_of_war said:
Regarding bans, I'd say the difference between people like you and free people is that one group doesn't think up ways to impose and oppress the other. There's no mythology about shooting and gun ownership, either, it used to be a time-honored tradition and respected tool. Urban development has changed that and gave rise to the ignorance of today.
There are qualified and trained officers to deal with humans who threaten a town, they're called cops. I live in a suburb of more than 50,000 people and there are only so many responders. This is why people need to be allowed to have a gun in the hand rather than a cop on the phone (if they can).TopazFusion said:
Nice how I keep reading this thread without having to post anything since Katatori-kun keeps saying what I intend to say. 
getting lazy here xD.
getting lazy here xD.
Forcing one's culture on another group of people is a fool's game and wrong to begin with, no matter what the subject is. (Unless it's something fundamental like human sacrifices or genital mutilation). Also, have you ever stopped and wondered WHY those areas were unsafe or actually quite dangerous to walk though? I can tell you with 100% certainty it's not because guns are legal.Katatori-kun said:
The question that never comes up in these topics is "Why don't we ban all gun ownership, police and military included?"
With the police, we could limit the number of guns to a handful of SWAT teams with the rest of the force limited to non-lethal weapons. With the military, scale the machine back dramatically and only allow access to guns during an invasion/attack on our home soil.
But you never hear that. It's always "how do we disarm the populace?"
With the police, we could limit the number of guns to a handful of SWAT teams with the rest of the force limited to non-lethal weapons. With the military, scale the machine back dramatically and only allow access to guns during an invasion/attack on our home soil.
But you never hear that. It's always "how do we disarm the populace?"
Because for that to work, not only your own population would have to disarm, but all other potential enemies as well.The chances of that happening are non-existant.thepyrethatburns said:
Easy, because gangs and criminals don't follow the law. Maybe you should actually do something useful, like address the social and economic pressures that force people into gangs or acts of crime, instead of trying to make firearms magically vanish into thin air.Katatori-kun said:
Ever noticed how outside of the media frenzy bonanzas that are mass shootings by white people against other white people in middle class neighborhoods, almost all gun violence is inner-city thugs and gangs? More innocent children died from gang gun related violence in the week following Newton using handguns, but does nobody cry out for them? Does anybody try to help solve the ghettos? No, this rage and fury you gun control people spew is ultimately empty. More aimed at making you feel safe in your little, well-to-do, 1st world problems cocoon then actually solving anything.
Spend your time trying to make peoples lives better instead of trying to take away hunks of metal.
Take "other nation-states", replace with "criminal elements".Aetherlblade said:
I'm really tired of your omnislashing, it's getting rather boring. But here, just for you.Katatori-kun said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/child-gun-deaths-newtown_n_2347920.html
Oh look, a disproportionate amount of gun deaths are those of minority race, low income and live in the inner cities. Strange...it's almost like guns are merely a symptom of some much larger and pressing issue.
Congrats on the 800th post of the thread friend! I will grant you with the only response of me, the great and all mighty op.Aetherlblade said:
We can't live without a military, even my dream utopia has a military, because others will want what I have. That Utopia is Star Trek btw
I have no interest or support of petitioning the U.N. to do anything other than get the fuck away from me and my fellow countrymen. It needs to go away along with the entire idea of world government. It's a rotten, foul organization tainted with vermin puppets consolidating power and running roughshod over duly elected governments by people. It's a total usurping of power by unelected madmen.Katatori-kun said:
We're not talking about regulation, the thread is about a gun ban. Zip. Zero. You legally have access to nothing. I'm very glad you live in a safe area. You know what? I do too. But that's not the point. The point is people deserve the choice, the option, if they abide. Criminal statistics are measures of violence in society, a deeply-rooted issue, not evidence to be used to advance a political agenda or erroneously appease angry people who don't respond to their community problems.Katatori-kun said:
Where I live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_IllinoisKatatori-kun said:
Other examples of this lack of regulation you speak of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut
"...not like they're tracked accurately enough that I couldn't just hide one until the heat was off."PeterMerkin69 said:
Maybe a reason why the need for better gun control?
As Breivik noted... he had a "clean criminal record, hunting license, and two guns already for seven years", and that obtaining the guns legally should therefore not be a problem.