Poll: There is no justifiable reason for civilians to own modern weapons.
- Thread starter HotFezz8
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Guess what people, as to the old saying "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"
I don't think you realise just how difficult it is to lay your hands on guns when they're as widely illegalised as they are in the UK. Sure all you gun nuts can keep preaching about how they let you protect yourself. But guess what. The facts of the matter are that the more guns in a country, the more gun deaths. You can preach all you want about your right to bear arms but those are the facts of the matter.
I don't care if someone is robbing your house, you shoot an unarmed burglar and you deserve to have your ass thrown in jail.
I don't think you realise just how difficult it is to lay your hands on guns when they're as widely illegalised as they are in the UK. Sure all you gun nuts can keep preaching about how they let you protect yourself. But guess what. The facts of the matter are that the more guns in a country, the more gun deaths. You can preach all you want about your right to bear arms but those are the facts of the matter.
I don't care if someone is robbing your house, you shoot an unarmed burglar and you deserve to have your ass thrown in jail.
A japanese man once said that invading America was impossible, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. That's all I have to say. Go ahead and outlaw it if you want, those who want them will find a way around your boundaries regardless of how carefully they're planned.
Well, i had the same thought awhile ago. But someone pointed out to me that some people like to collect them, they like them like we like older-finished games, take it out once in awhile to remind ourselves that we love it, and such. The only problem is when some idiot doesn't know what a lock is, and they don't secure their collection of nice bullet-shooting guns, leading to obviously the kid access problem, so instead of trying to take the guns away why don't we make them get locked up.HotFezz8 said:
I think I'll go with the Chris Rock way. Guns are legal but bullets cost $5000 each. "Man I'd blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it."
I live in a country where civilians can't own guns except for hunting purposes, and there isn't a totalitarian dictatorship complete with secret police and concentration camps. In fact, there's a democracy believe it or not.londelen said:
Personally I think everyone should have their own intercontinental ballistic missiles, in case they want to hunt animals on the other side of the world or defend themselves against someone who threatened them over the internet. (sarcasm)
Personally I see the sense in the wacky theory that less people get shot by people with guns if there are less guns available to people. Call me crazy if you must, it's just my opinion.
I was speaking specifically of GTA:IV. However...Noelveiga said:
No, not quite. You don't just walk into some den and start buying guns. However, it is the same in that criminals buy their guns illegally from other criminals.
I figured anyone who could type with proper grammar such as yourself could have surmised that for, but I guess not.
We have the right to bear arms, according to our forefathers and Constitution. That is a broad thing to say. Who is to say one arm should be allowed when another would not. Of course you can argue that perhaps using a fully automatic weapon to go hunting deer with might be a might excessive. But if the military has access to a firepower, it is up to the citizens to match that might privately to create a checks and balances system. However, the only reason the right to bear arms was ever added as a right that the citizens should always have, is Thomas Jefferson has said that, and I am going to paraphrase the quote, but "It takes takes a little over 200 years for a government to become corrupt, and it is at that point that is the moral duty of the citizens to rise up and correct it." If the government can have a weapon, then I think it is only fair that the citizens should have the same access. The only thing that I can draw the line at, is tht a personal Nuke launcher might be a bit much, but that is only because the methods at which we attempt to control these types of weapons is a bit stupid. You can not tell the world, hey, only these guys get them, as you end up having countries like North Korea that go on and make them anways, not to mention what is going on in Iran. But the point I am trying to make is, that if you make peaceful revolution impossible, then you make violenent revlolution inevitable.
The problem lies in the fact that only criminals have guns then. If we gave every teacher an M4, you wouldn't have school wide shootings. It would be "Oh shit!" then the psychopath would walk in and be brought down before they could do anything. Ideally.cynicalandbored said:
Now in a perfect world where criminals don't have guns, then sure, I guess I can see the merits of taking guns away, except for that may lead to totalitarianism.
(quote isn't working.. )
But someone said they were Canadian and was for tight gun control. Well, that is interesting, as I watched a doumentary how they tightened gun laws up there, and literally OVERNIGHT there was a near 50 percent if not higher rise in home invasion break ins in Canada, where people would be robbed at gun point in their own home. Since the people in the house were not allowed to have guns, only criminals were able to get them. So, therefore, criminals were able to exploit the law to extort the citizens. Any society that gives a little bit of freedom to gain a little bit of security, will end up losing both and deserves neither.
But someone said they were Canadian and was for tight gun control. Well, that is interesting, as I watched a doumentary how they tightened gun laws up there, and literally OVERNIGHT there was a near 50 percent if not higher rise in home invasion break ins in Canada, where people would be robbed at gun point in their own home. Since the people in the house were not allowed to have guns, only criminals were able to get them. So, therefore, criminals were able to exploit the law to extort the citizens. Any society that gives a little bit of freedom to gain a little bit of security, will end up losing both and deserves neither.
are you being sarcastic or what?Simalacrum said:
any ways I'm the american who has to be the prick that has to disagree... Welp lets get this over with.
So you think that civilians should not have guns? Alright that I can agree with but it's not just any old civilian that has the gun its the ones with the training and the license to use them. Now criminals that have guns normally do not need a license because they don't have to obey the law so they will just either steal or buy guns from under market dealers and kill people like that. Now think about this if we banned said guns who would not have them only the civilians and the criminals would be running around with there own illegal guns cause they don't give a shit. So without the ability to protect themselves they have to wait for the police to come to them which doesn't happen magically right when you call them.
speaking of the police what about the police in England? If the normal policeman doesn't have a gun and the criminal has the illegal gun isn't he at a disadvantage?
Now I have been told that the crime rate in England is higher then it is Usa remember though I have just been told. If this is true then wouldn't that mean that the gun control isn't really doing shit or England just happens to full of gangs. Which it might be considering the only real gang from the US was the biker gang so the gangs from England may just still be there I'm not sure.
this is only site I got with actual comparison of rates (If you have different rates that are more credible please message me I would actually appreciate it a lot.)
http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/
Criminals have guns here in Ireland too. And criminals have guns in most countries where it's illegal for civilians to own them. But gun related deaths per capita are still many times lower (don't have exact figures, sorry) than in the US. And it's not because we have less criminals per capita, it's because it's much harder to get guns.firedfns13 said:
Also, I had pointed out in my previous post that the majority of countries where civilians have guns are not in fact totalitarian states, so I don't understand where that idea comes from. Guns didn't exist in Ancient Greece, but they managed to invent democracy. Britain has had a democratic government for quite some time now without civilians owning guns. As has France. And in the case of the French, their revolution was led by people who didn't have guns against a monarchy that did. I have no idea how you can possibly link a complete lack of guns in the world to the development of totalitarian regimes.