Since cars kill several hundred people daily, they should be banned, even though most people won't cause harm with them and have legitimate uses for them but it's worth saving those extra lives, amirite?
When the first gun was created, it was used in wars, in order to kill people and end lives. As war technology grew, newer and bigger guns were created in order to kill more people and end more lives.
Guns are not created with the purpose of destroying ending life. Most guns marketed to civilians are made for two purposes: sports and protection. That also how almost every gun sold is used.
I wonder how many people No wayed this post because they disagreed about what it said about gun rights and how many because they didn't understand it was a metaphor.
I don't think guns should be banned, but the regulation system we have is not strict enough. I mean seriously, getting 6000 rounds of ammunition through the internet? That's ridiculous!
no one needs it but some people just like to buy in bulk. shit if I had the money I would buy 6000 rounds of ammunition at once, just means I don't have to buy anymore for a while. there isn't really any difference from buying 6000 and 100. he could have caused just as much damage picking up a 100rd value pack at walmart. you want to stop mass shootings from happening then just don't interfere with law abiding citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves.
Guns are not ugly items designed to kill. That's completely absurd. Guns sold to civilians are mostly used for two purposes: sports and protection.
Guns are great for fun outdoor activities like hunting and target shooting. I've got many fond memories of spending summer at my uncle's cabin shooting tin cans off of fence posts with grandpa's old 22.
Guns are also absolutely necessary for protection. Lot's of people have to transport large sums of money or valuable products and need extra protection from thieves. Besides, police can't be everywhere and they can't show up immidetly.
True, but Americans like to think that we should all inconvenience target shooters and hunters for the sole purpose of reducing homicides. This doesn't include those who keep guns for personal protection. If we're going this far to punish the majority for crimes that the minority makes, we might as well go the extra mile and ban everything that can be used for homicide, like cars. Yes, cars can and have been used for homicide. Yeah, cars are generally used for transportation. But that doesn't make it any less dangerous than a gun, and people use cars for homicide more often than guns, but the media likes reporting the latter because those stories sell better. The typical American reaction is that we should not hold people accountable for their actions, but objects or media outlets (video games) have either convinced them or helped them greatly. Also, taking away the one and only thing that humans can defend themselves with reliably never made sense to me.
I'm sure that most people who are for gun control have the right intentions, but let's face it; it's impossible for America to completely get rid of its guns, it's far too late for that.
What's a good alternative for personal defense? I'm genuinely curious. (Non-lethal forms of defense work about half the time, if not less.)
What kind of disadvantages does having a gun involve? It doesn't make people more or less violent. It doesn't magically float away and kill things on its own. If you're not trusting the general public to have guns but trusting them enough to drive 2 ton steel deathtraps at 30 miles per hour in residential areas with children and the like nearby, that's all I'm going to say about that.
With all the police brutality we see in the beloved media and stories of government troops slaughtering civilians, you're seriously trusting them with guns but not the law abiding citizen? That...that's a scary thought.
I think us pro-gun people get offended by it because typically when gun control advocates mention gun control, they imply that guns should be taken away from citizens all together. I know that not all of them think that, but generally, most of them do.
Wait, how is having a gun for personal protection ridiculous? The police aren't going to be there all the time, and by the time they arrive, it's way too late. It's either having a gun and living or not having a gun and dying. Having almost done the latter, I'd choose not to be a victim again. It's not like criminals say "oh, this guy doesn't have a gun and he's completely defenseless, better not attack him because it wouldn't be fair". They would pounce on that oppurtunity and only attack the disarmed.
Disarming the innocent doesn't protect them, it only makes criminals have an easier time harming the innocent. It's a cliche point, but goddammit, it's true and nobody wants to admit it.
Would you prefer them having knives instead? It's the same concept, just without the ugly "gun".
All animals use some form of protection. Humans use tools, mainly guns. Taking away the only thing that people can defend themselves with reliably and providing no effective alternative doesn't make much sense to me.
Big_Boss, you said a while ago that it was "too late" for Americans to have their guns taken away. This is a bit spurious don't you think? I mean, regarding blacks as racially inferior was the common belief adopted for a long time before it was driven away. Everyone had horses until someone came up with a better idea...it's no good saying "it's just like that and it can't change" - if there were real logic behind that, then nothing would ever change
Just gonna go ahead and ignore that comment from Anon - doesn't even want me to know who he/she/it is. I think another issue here is that "gun control" doesn't mean that NO ONE will be able to have guns, it just means that it will be MUCH HARDER for people to get their hands on them. If you can show it is for sporting use, I have no objection to that personally. My uncle in England was a keen hunter, and I went with him several times shooting. But he was allowed his hun because he proved himself proficient at using it, and that it was solely for hunting. Keeping the laws as they are in many places in the states is ludicrous - how many more massacres will you tolerate before you decide that perhaps some more control is needed
Yeah! We should hold everyone accountable for the actions of a tiny minority. You're so smart that I hope you write a book! I would be the first to buy it.
Great sarcasm. But seriously, this attitude is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. What's wrong with making the process of getting a gun tougher? By making it tougher, we ensure that the crackpot minority don't get their hands on one, while sane and responsible people still can. Isn't that just logical? Why do pro-gun people get so defensive about it. If you really are as responsible and competent as you say you are, then you WILL get your gun! What's wrong with you all?! Worried we'll find out how crazy you really are?
And you think that the law would really be as sweeping as that? Don't forget that what the man on the street says invariably will never be what's written into law. Also don't forget that the law cares nothing for the feelings and emotions of individuals, it cares only for the safeguarding of social order. The law isn't going to say "no guns for anyone". Even in the UK where we DO have gun control, people who should be allowed guns can get them.
Guns are ugly items designed to kill. If you're a licensed hunter who puts his guns to a good use, I'm fine with that. But if you keep a gun around waiting to shoot somebody if you "need" to, that's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I won't see taking that gun away as an unreasonable "punishment" for the actions of some gun users.
I am not holding guns responsable for the actions of those that use them to kill. But there is clearly a problem with gun violence in America, and while there should obviously be attempts to educate the youth on the dangers of guns and to help them avoid violence, those solutions will be extremely slow and never fully successful. The other clear option here is to severely limit access to the weapon, and thereby limiting their ability to engage in violence.
There will always be situations where having a gun would be ideal, but I will never see them as necessary, and the problems far outweigh the advantages, as in every situation where it would be an advantage in the hands of good, it still isn't unavoidable.
I am obviously not advocating knife violence, but yes, gun violence would be worse, especially since the authorities who would keep guns would retain a substantial advantage.
And don't try to make an argument about guns being humans natural defense. Not only are there effective alternatives, there are also very few examples where you would need any weapon.
You really have no idea about anything you're talking about do you Tommy? All your points have no factual evidence to back them up. Just sounds like you base your opinion on TV shows and movies.
But I don't wish to get so embroiled in the gun control debate. I'm quite convinced already that gun control is ultimately beneficial for a society. People say you need them to defend yourselves, but really...you don't carry it about your person 24/7 and in truth, if you ARE going to be attacked,it would probably be in the street or when you least expect, rather than as a break in. Home security can be as simple as a good alarm system, or even just a barking dog. There are NOT many burglars who will continue a break in once the dog starts barking - they rely on stealth, not violence to get the job done. The dog or alarm system immediately robs them of that. All guns do is put additional danger and risk in your house. Plus, society doesn't allow for the casual murdering of intruders these days...so alternatives are better than getting yourself in trouble for shooting some punk robber in your living room
I know I'm a bit late, but what kind of civilian actually NEEDS a gun? I live in Australia where there are very strict regulations on guns (E.g. You need a license, you need them stored in a safe at home, Ammunition needs to be stored in a separate safe and all this is just for sporting/farming reasons.)
If they were made illegal, sure people would still get them illegally, but it saves people who don't actually NEED a gun having them. Here we have very little problems to do with guns, and when they're involved, there's often harsh consequences.
I also must admit, I don't know much about the American Constitution and what it entails, but seriously, who put 'The right to bare arms' there? What kind of paranoid person did that? With a couple of good locks, you could probably get the same protection.
Just as a normal citizen, I can tell you through observations, that where strict guns laws lack, more violent attacks occur, you can't deny it... It's a shame really.
Oh my gosh. We get the point. You're pro-guns or whatever.
The last 3 posts I've read by you have been related to guns in some way.
Please, post about a new topic.
Harsh dude - sounded more to me like he was just offering a banter-like pointer, along the vein of "put on a different record" - people have said that to me before. Who cares?
It's not really keeping track if they're all on the just in page. I noticed a pattern, looked back at the name of the poster, and lo and behold! They were all by you.
yeah but they're not classified as hunting weapons, right? That's an important factor. Obviously you can hunt with any gun, or any projectile weapon for that matter. Whatever, gun control is very important
@stickcaveman - on reflection you're probably right...but seriously have you read some of the non-sarcastic rubbish that's on here? hahaha you can't be totally sure sometimes.
guys guys! this is what the gun nuts WANT! Don't we all agree that the logic of this post is basically retarded? Of course you can't compare guns and cars in this way. I'm totally sacrificing my average post score in order to get my view across here, haha. I've been voted down on every single post. It's gonna take some mega gay rights and big laugh comments to get my average back! Let's join against these crazies!
Just gonna say exactly this, but you beat me to it!
When the first gun was created, it was used in wars, in order to kill people and end lives. As war technology grew, newer and bigger guns were created in order to kill more people and end more lives.
Guns are not created with the purpose of destroying ending life. Most guns marketed to civilians are made for two purposes: sports and protection. That also how almost every gun sold is used.
I wonder how many people No wayed this post because they disagreed about what it said about gun rights and how many because they didn't understand it was a metaphor.
I don't think guns should be banned, but the regulation system we have is not strict enough. I mean seriously, getting 6000 rounds of ammunition through the internet? That's ridiculous!
No gun owner needs 6000 rounds at once. That should have raised a red flag.
no one needs it but some people just like to buy in bulk. shit if I had the money I would buy 6000 rounds of ammunition at once, just means I don't have to buy anymore for a while. there isn't really any difference from buying 6000 and 100. he could have caused just as much damage picking up a 100rd value pack at walmart. you want to stop mass shootings from happening then just don't interfere with law abiding citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves.
He also ordered them in a very short amount of time.
To emphasize Big_Boss's point... If guns were suddenly banned, criminals will still have guns because of their disregard for laws.
Guns are not ugly items designed to kill. That's completely absurd. Guns sold to civilians are mostly used for two purposes: sports and protection.
Guns are great for fun outdoor activities like hunting and target shooting. I've got many fond memories of spending summer at my uncle's cabin shooting tin cans off of fence posts with grandpa's old 22.
Guns are also absolutely necessary for protection. Lot's of people have to transport large sums of money or valuable products and need extra protection from thieves. Besides, police can't be everywhere and they can't show up immidetly.
True, but Americans like to think that we should all inconvenience target shooters and hunters for the sole purpose of reducing homicides. This doesn't include those who keep guns for personal protection. If we're going this far to punish the majority for crimes that the minority makes, we might as well go the extra mile and ban everything that can be used for homicide, like cars. Yes, cars can and have been used for homicide. Yeah, cars are generally used for transportation. But that doesn't make it any less dangerous than a gun, and people use cars for homicide more often than guns, but the media likes reporting the latter because those stories sell better. The typical American reaction is that we should not hold people accountable for their actions, but objects or media outlets (video games) have either convinced them or helped them greatly. Also, taking away the one and only thing that humans can defend themselves with reliably never made sense to me.
I'm sure that most people who are for gun control have the right intentions, but let's face it; it's impossible for America to completely get rid of its guns, it's far too late for that.
What's a good alternative for personal defense? I'm genuinely curious. (Non-lethal forms of defense work about half the time, if not less.)
What kind of disadvantages does having a gun involve? It doesn't make people more or less violent. It doesn't magically float away and kill things on its own. If you're not trusting the general public to have guns but trusting them enough to drive 2 ton steel deathtraps at 30 miles per hour in residential areas with children and the like nearby, that's all I'm going to say about that.
With all the police brutality we see in the beloved media and stories of government troops slaughtering civilians, you're seriously trusting them with guns but not the law abiding citizen? That...that's a scary thought.
Would you consider defense a necessity?
Ahh yes, the oh-so-trustworthy authorities who are never susceptible to corruption or anything like that.
And no, stickcaveman, that would only be true if there was nothing but the law itself preventing gun distribution.
I think us pro-gun people get offended by it because typically when gun control advocates mention gun control, they imply that guns should be taken away from citizens all together. I know that not all of them think that, but generally, most of them do.
And that statistic comes from...?
Not with a lethal weapon. Security is a necessity. That's not synonymous with gun ownership.
If the intruder is motivated enough, no practical amount of security will stop them.
Also, Mr. Trogdor, what the hell are we going to do with all of these targets and clay pigeons without our guns??
Wait, how is having a gun for personal protection ridiculous? The police aren't going to be there all the time, and by the time they arrive, it's way too late. It's either having a gun and living or not having a gun and dying. Having almost done the latter, I'd choose not to be a victim again. It's not like criminals say "oh, this guy doesn't have a gun and he's completely defenseless, better not attack him because it wouldn't be fair". They would pounce on that oppurtunity and only attack the disarmed.
Disarming the innocent doesn't protect them, it only makes criminals have an easier time harming the innocent. It's a cliche point, but goddammit, it's true and nobody wants to admit it.
Would you prefer them having knives instead? It's the same concept, just without the ugly "gun".
All animals use some form of protection. Humans use tools, mainly guns. Taking away the only thing that people can defend themselves with reliably and providing no effective alternative doesn't make much sense to me.
Big_Boss, you said a while ago that it was "too late" for Americans to have their guns taken away. This is a bit spurious don't you think? I mean, regarding blacks as racially inferior was the common belief adopted for a long time before it was driven away. Everyone had horses until someone came up with a better idea...it's no good saying "it's just like that and it can't change" - if there were real logic behind that, then nothing would ever change
Just gonna go ahead and ignore that comment from Anon - doesn't even want me to know who he/she/it is. I think another issue here is that "gun control" doesn't mean that NO ONE will be able to have guns, it just means that it will be MUCH HARDER for people to get their hands on them. If you can show it is for sporting use, I have no objection to that personally. My uncle in England was a keen hunter, and I went with him several times shooting. But he was allowed his hun because he proved himself proficient at using it, and that it was solely for hunting. Keeping the laws as they are in many places in the states is ludicrous - how many more massacres will you tolerate before you decide that perhaps some more control is needed
Yeah! We should hold everyone accountable for the actions of a tiny minority. You're so smart that I hope you write a book! I would be the first to buy it.
Great sarcasm. But seriously, this attitude is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. What's wrong with making the process of getting a gun tougher? By making it tougher, we ensure that the crackpot minority don't get their hands on one, while sane and responsible people still can. Isn't that just logical? Why do pro-gun people get so defensive about it. If you really are as responsible and competent as you say you are, then you WILL get your gun! What's wrong with you all?! Worried we'll find out how crazy you really are?
And you think that the law would really be as sweeping as that? Don't forget that what the man on the street says invariably will never be what's written into law. Also don't forget that the law cares nothing for the feelings and emotions of individuals, it cares only for the safeguarding of social order. The law isn't going to say "no guns for anyone". Even in the UK where we DO have gun control, people who should be allowed guns can get them.
Fuck, I ran out of space. :(
Guns are ugly items designed to kill. If you're a licensed hunter who puts his guns to a good use, I'm fine with that. But if you keep a gun around waiting to shoot somebody if you "need" to, that's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I won't see taking that gun away as an unreasonable "punishment" for the actions of some gun users.
I am not holding guns responsable for the actions of those that use them to kill. But there is clearly a problem with gun violence in America, and while there should obviously be attempts to educate the youth on the dangers of guns and to help them avoid violence, those solutions will be extremely slow and never fully successful. The other clear option here is to severely limit access to the weapon, and thereby limiting their ability to engage in violence.
There will always be situations where having a gun would be ideal, but I will never see them as necessary, and the problems far outweigh the advantages, as in every situation where it would be an advantage in the hands of good, it still isn't unavoidable.
I am obviously not advocating knife violence, but yes, gun violence would be worse, especially since the authorities who would keep guns would retain a substantial advantage.
And don't try to make an argument about guns being humans natural defense. Not only are there effective alternatives, there are also very few examples where you would need any weapon.
@Big_Boss: did you know, you are much more likely to be shot by a robber in your home if you own a gun? Not the robber, you.
You really have no idea about anything you're talking about do you Tommy? All your points have no factual evidence to back them up. Just sounds like you base your opinion on TV shows and movies.
But I don't wish to get so embroiled in the gun control debate. I'm quite convinced already that gun control is ultimately beneficial for a society. People say you need them to defend yourselves, but really...you don't carry it about your person 24/7 and in truth, if you ARE going to be attacked,it would probably be in the street or when you least expect, rather than as a break in. Home security can be as simple as a good alarm system, or even just a barking dog. There are NOT many burglars who will continue a break in once the dog starts barking - they rely on stealth, not violence to get the job done. The dog or alarm system immediately robs them of that. All guns do is put additional danger and risk in your house. Plus, society doesn't allow for the casual murdering of intruders these days...so alternatives are better than getting yourself in trouble for shooting some punk robber in your living room
Oho! You and your anti gun control analogies! I like the post and i like your view
That would totally ruin my dream to drive in one and a half years.
I know I'm a bit late, but what kind of civilian actually NEEDS a gun? I live in Australia where there are very strict regulations on guns (E.g. You need a license, you need them stored in a safe at home, Ammunition needs to be stored in a separate safe and all this is just for sporting/farming reasons.)
If they were made illegal, sure people would still get them illegally, but it saves people who don't actually NEED a gun having them. Here we have very little problems to do with guns, and when they're involved, there's often harsh consequences.
I also must admit, I don't know much about the American Constitution and what it entails, but seriously, who put 'The right to bare arms' there? What kind of paranoid person did that? With a couple of good locks, you could probably get the same protection.
Just as a normal citizen, I can tell you through observations, that where strict guns laws lack, more violent attacks occur, you can't deny it... It's a shame really.
Please be troll
Oh my gosh. We get the point. You're pro-guns or whatever.
The last 3 posts I've read by you have been related to guns in some way.
Please, post about a new topic.
It's a little weird that you're keeping track of what I post o_0
He can post whatever he wants, Anon. Gun control is a pretty hot topic right now.
Sounds like you got a pretty pathetic life if you care that BB is making gun posts.
Harsh dude - sounded more to me like he was just offering a banter-like pointer, along the vein of "put on a different record" - people have said that to me before. Who cares?
It's not really keeping track if they're all on the just in page. I noticed a pattern, looked back at the name of the poster, and lo and behold! They were all by you.
yeah, i clicked no way, not because I don't want to save lives, but because the post is just...nonsensical
That's the fucking point. It's gun control logic.
Wouldn't say ironic, but yeah.
Yeah, and yet it supposedly makes sense to most people here.
Actually you cant hunt with every gun because of gun control
you can hunt with handguns
yeah but they're not classified as hunting weapons, right? That's an important factor. Obviously you can hunt with any gun, or any projectile weapon for that matter. Whatever, gun control is very important
So...you're saying that...this kind of logic is stupid, right?
well, you don't seem to make it clear and honestly i just read it and thought you meant it
I take it means you DON'T believe in gun control? Even handguns and other non-hunting related ones?
Ooooohh I was worried for a few seconds thar
you mean you're being ironic?
This just seems so misinformed and naive that I'm tempted to dub thee a troll
I think an outrageous statement like, "we should ban cars..." is pretty easy to interpret as sarcasm.
Bros bros bros bros bros bros wheres the bromance theres to much brohate goin on here
We really need to get a sarcasm font for the Internet. It would make conversations so much more understandable.
i mean for the subtler occasions.
@stickcaveman - on reflection you're probably right...but seriously have you read some of the non-sarcastic rubbish that's on here? hahaha you can't be totally sure sometimes.
guys guys! this is what the gun nuts WANT! Don't we all agree that the logic of this post is basically retarded? Of course you can't compare guns and cars in this way. I'm totally sacrificing my average post score in order to get my view across here, haha. I've been voted down on every single post. It's gonna take some mega gay rights and big laugh comments to get my average back! Let's join against these crazies!
Farewell, thy royal articulateness
(psst. there never was a "discussion":/... )
I know I commented again below, didn't you see? lol. bro. you voted it down. bro.
Bro alright take a chill pill
Already found this out, "bro"