Should there be gun control in the United States
- Thread starter Hamsterlad
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hollow points are the best for concealed carry and home defense, they expand on impact and don't usually go though your target. So stopping power is increased and less likely your gonna shoot though a wall into a bedroom or whatnot.Ichimaru said:
Bullet control will do nothing but keep those who legally own guns from getting bullets.
Criminals will still get ahold of bullets/guns no matter what laws are passed against them.
Criminals will still get ahold of bullets/guns no matter what laws are passed against them.
I need hollow points so my conceal-carry can PUT DOWN whoever is trying to attack me so they don't get the chance to still come after me before they bleed out.Ichimaru said:
Greater tissue damage for the win.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that 7.62 soviet is a lighter and faster round than 5.56NATO?vxicepickxv said:
The majority of the shootings in school are done by children, who do not have the right to bear arms by the US legal system. There are limits, the children just seem to get their hands on the weapons - more a case of poor parenting than gun control law issues. Just like kids seem to get their hands on violent games rated 17+, even though they aren't really supposed to have them.buy teh haloz said:
It's ironic to me that people often blame this issue on guns, when it's likely more a parenting thing, just like the media blame these events on games.
I'm not saying it's lighter. I'm saying it's fired in a straight line faster(more powder) than the .223 round used in an M-16.scumofsociety said:
That's the funniest think I've heard all day!scumofsociety said:
Your average 7.62 round is twice the weight of a 5.56 round and carries a lot more energy.
As long as it doesn't mess with my collection or ability to legally obtain firearms than sure.
But if it does... people will pay.
But if it does... people will pay.
I have a complex view on this.
While I completly belive in the second amedment, I do belive that the system used to obtain a gun is rather inadiquate.
Yes they do back ground checks to asure that known criminals or any one wiht a criminal history doesnt obtain one. But there arnt any psycological exams, even if some one isnt a criminal they can still be mentaly unstable. Even if the exams dont catch every crazy that want a gun so that they can shoot up the local costco, It should still catch a large amount of them and the can save alot of lives.
While I completly belive in the second amedment, I do belive that the system used to obtain a gun is rather inadiquate.
Yes they do back ground checks to asure that known criminals or any one wiht a criminal history doesnt obtain one. But there arnt any psycological exams, even if some one isnt a criminal they can still be mentaly unstable. Even if the exams dont catch every crazy that want a gun so that they can shoot up the local costco, It should still catch a large amount of them and the can save alot of lives.
do you need ak47's not really but if that your thing you have that right to collect such items. in my home state of indiana we kill over a 100,000 white tailed deer each year. some use bows but mostly this is done with are firearms. i know some animal lovers would scream dont shoot bambe. but in truth these deer would couse vast damage to are cropland car crashes we are barly keeping the deer populations under control. if you took are guns the deer would hit a PLAGUE levels look. at new zealand when they brought the rabbits in they had no natural predators to keep the population under control. the rabbits hit a plague level and destroyed pretty much all the farm land used for raising sheep. if we allowed that to happen in the U.S. with a 150-400 pound deer in the farm belt the results would be extrealy bad. right now with the taking of a 100,000+ deer each year not only do we save lives from car crashes, save are cropland from total destruction, and feed the lower class though donations of meat, and save a butt load of money by having a full freezer of food. we keep the state in balance having the deer dont really hurt us. now if you banned guns this would not be the case we would be looking at 80% to 90% crop loss, increased insurance cost becouse the increased amount of deer getting hit on the road, loss of life resulting from accedents ,most of the country and the world would stavre to death so is the mad man shooting poeple with a gun worth the cost your asking us to pay. i say not if you decide to ban are guns being a man that defends his country and willing to die to keep my country free i say you have to kill me if you want my gun .i will not let you starve my people becouse of one man decide to shoot yours. sad part is i dont even own a gun i would have to buy one so i could get shot for my beliefs and die happy
First and foremost I am unimpressed by statistics. We can twist numbers any which way we want and get almost any answer we want. Case in point, the US murder rate is 5.6 per 100,000 deaths, vs the UK which is 2.03 per 100,000. Oh no! That means your 2.76 times more likely to be murdered in the US! How horrible one says! But thats out of 100,000 deaths, in the grand scheme of things that's not even a blip on the 'what should I worry about' radar.
Oooh, scary.
To me the entire point of private individuals owning firearms is this:
Governments, over time, historically have had a tendency to become more controlling and tyrannical. Having an armed populous is the final check-and-balance of democracy. If a government should ever become so abusive and intolerable that the regular channels of voting and political action cannot correct the situation, then an armed populace would have the ability to rise up and forcibly replace the government with a more agreeable one.
And THAT is all that matters in the end to me folk, the citizens of a country as a whole should ALWAYS remain more powerful than the government. I will never support gun control for that reason, for all it does is strip the population of power and place more of it into the hands of the government.
To me, having me and my neighbors be armed is worth a slightly greater, but still extremely small chance that I might meet an unfortunate end at the hands of a criminal.
Oooh, scary.
To me the entire point of private individuals owning firearms is this:
Governments, over time, historically have had a tendency to become more controlling and tyrannical. Having an armed populous is the final check-and-balance of democracy. If a government should ever become so abusive and intolerable that the regular channels of voting and political action cannot correct the situation, then an armed populace would have the ability to rise up and forcibly replace the government with a more agreeable one.
And THAT is all that matters in the end to me folk, the citizens of a country as a whole should ALWAYS remain more powerful than the government. I will never support gun control for that reason, for all it does is strip the population of power and place more of it into the hands of the government.
To me, having me and my neighbors be armed is worth a slightly greater, but still extremely small chance that I might meet an unfortunate end at the hands of a criminal.
I must say I rather enjoy these threads that directly relate to the world's favorite punching bag, the US, and all the issues we have. Is it just me, or are alot of people posting on this thread do not even live in the States? Over 200 years ago, we had specific rules written about this subject, and the most simple one was only four words; right to bear arms. As Americans we have every right to protect ourselves. No matter how anxious the Dems get, I doubt we would ever lose that right.
Are you sure that's right? Figures like that are usually presented per head of population (as in per 100,000 population).DoctorNick said:
The problem isn't the gun-control. I, and this is my opinion, the crime problem isn't because of the the lack there-of, but its the lack of funding towards police, and other crime prevention measures. And when it comes down to it, the lack of hard enough laws. I.E., make the death penalty mandatory for certain crimes, such as murder, rape, etc. I do agree with the right to bear arms. Hell, I own a S&W 945 at the house. Thing is, we need the law to come down harder.
Well, that's according to Wikipedia.scumofsociety said:
Which, granted, is generally kind of useless but they usually get things like this straight.
The US murder rate number is agreed upon by the FBI though:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
I'm still looking for a UK number, but I'm willing to trust the Wikipedia number as being more or less correct.
