Guns r just bad. ban em'

[Stefu]

People who say guns should be banned are stuck in their own illogical bottle of confusion and should open their damn eyes.

I don't think that them opening their eyes would do much as long as they're stuck inside a bottle of confusion. I mean, if some of that confusion gets inside the eye, they could be blinded for weeks.

[Mikhail]

Guns don't kill people. The government does.


Seriously though, if the Polish were to walk in here tomorrow, and I DIDN'T have a gun, tell me, HOW AM I GOING TO SHOOT THEM???

[Giancarlo]

You people... are something else... forget it... I won't even discuss my opinion with some people who are so misinformed they don't even know what they are talking about.

[Immortal Wombat]

*stifles overly sarcastic reply*

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The difference between alcohol, cigarettes, cars, money and guns, is that GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL, while alcohol, cigarettes, cars and money are NOT.

Some would disagree on the cigarettes thing .

Yeah you are right . If cigarettes were invented today they would be banned.

Btw: I do NOT smoke.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Mikhail
Guns don't kill people. The government does.


Seriously though, if the Polish were to walk in here tomorrow, and I DIDN'T have a gun, tell me, HOW AM I GOING TO SHOOT THEM???

Are Polish people banned in Ukraine?

[zulu9812]

This is why I am all for gun control. Something you might have heard about.

5/6 years ago a man armed with 4 hand guns walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. He shot dead 16 school kids of the ages 5 and 6, as well as their 22 year old female teacher.

That was when hand guns were legalised in Britain. Now they're not, thank god.

And might I just point out that the United States constitution says that you are allowed to bear arms in defense of the realm. The reason for that was so that the new country could legally raise an armed forces and not have to rely on other countries for military countries, and indeed to defend itself. Someone please explain how 'in defense of the realm' becomes 'white American male shoots burglar in the face with a shotgun'.

I wonder what the statistics for murder rates are in countries without gun control, compared to countries with?

[Kontiki]

It amazes me that the pro-gun people actually assume that if everybody was armed, all the time, there would be less crime.

Think a little....

- violent gang crime. They know that if they attack a member of a rival gang, there will be retaliation with guns. Never stops it from happening.

- crimes such as rape. What do you think drives a person to rape someone else? The fact that the victims aren't armed? People that commit these crimes are obviously disturbed in some way, rapes will still happen.

- break and enters/vandalism. Crimes generally not seen by other people anyway, so that's not gonna reduce it.

-white collar crime (eg. corporate). No effect there.

- general attacks against other people. Again, we're talking about a mental state here. If someone wants to be a "bully", for lack of a better term, having everyone armed is just going to up the ante.

-robberies. Do you think that if someone is desperate enough to steal/rob someone, the presence of a firearm on the victim is going to stop the crime? More likely it will be a "shoot before the other guy can" scenario.

In general, the deterrance a firearm offers is only because there may be the possibility of an easier target. If everyone was armed, then it just moves everything to a new and deadlier level.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And might I just point out that the United States constitution says that you are allowed to bear arms in defense of the realm

And where exactly does the Constitution say 'defense of the realm'? The actual purpose was so people would have power over the government because they were armed.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Fez
You people... are something else... forget it... I won't even discuss my opinion with some people who are so misinformed they don't even know what they are talking about.

This is another thing that bugs me. Not as much as stupid arguments, but still. Name-calling may feel good, but it does not positively contribute to any debate.

Actually, I guess that I'm assuming that the point of a debate is the pursuit of truth. Whereas it seems that for many people, the point is simply to make one's opponent look bad. Obviously, for these people, name-calling may be an effective debating tool.

But from my perspective, it makes sense to follow this rule of thumb: "Attack the idea, not the person." This rule also makes for civil discourse, but I suppose that is an unavoidable side effect.

For example, in this case, Fez might have shared what he thinks people here are misinformed about, and why, thereby perhaps causing some people to reevalute their opinions. Just saying that people are misinformed doesn't really accomplish anything, debate-wise.

[Dis]

in case it wasn't obvious this thread was a pathetic attempt at a troll. But hey it got up to 3 pages, so something worked . I think the cars and knife comment made that obvious.

but it makes you think. What did they mean by militia? hmmm...

[zulu9812]

aren't most OT polls trolling?

[Space05us]

if you take away everyones gun then they'll all start carrying knives

[Verto]

Fear the government that fears your gun.

My point I was trying to make above was, trying to reduce murders and other crimes by gun control is not the answer; criminals will keep their guns, while law abiding citizens lose theirs. The answer is not getting rid of anything that could be used to commit a crime or kill someone; teaching responsibility to children and adults and enforcing laws already on the books is.

Does it really matter what guns are intended to do? Just because it CAN kill someone doesn't mean it will - just because a car CAN kill someone, doesn't mean it will.

[Par4]

5/6 years ago a man armed with 4 hand guns walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. He shot dead 16 school kids of the ages 5 and 6, as well as their 22 year old female teacher.

Well obviously that guy was mentally deranged, anyone who wants to kill school children and their teacher for whatever reason if probably gonna kill someone if not with guns then with something.

There are 2 points to this, and it truely depends on the criminal at hand. Point 1 pro gun control is that if there were no guns and was just a normal guy who decided to go insane one day and shoot a bunch of 1st graders he wouldn't have killed as many if he hadn't had those guns. But then again he could have been a criminal and he would have guns even if they were illegal(it's naive to think that just because they're illegal they are unattainable). There is a second point, which even if all guns were unavailable to him, he would have commited his crime with a machete or baseball bat or something, just chopping or smashing in the skulls of the teacher and the small children. He probably would have killed less, but then again the guns would have been a moot point. It was going to happen anyway.

The same goes for all crimes, it could happen, it might not if there were laws against gun crimes it might happen anyway. It depends on the crimes. Gangs will have guns, and they will trickle down more to petty criminals, you can't stop the flow of guns completely. But some crimes could definately be stopped.

To me it is truely a point of principal. Not crimes, not murders. I want to live in a country where I am free to take whatever drugs I want, shoot whatever guns I want or whatever as long as it doesn't endanger other people. But if I start endangering other people or prove I am a danger to society by killing someone or some such, my rights should be removed. But they shouldn't be removed at birth just because a majority thinks it was better for me.