| Do you think guns should be banned in the US - yes or no? Personally, I think they should be banned for all uses other than hunting. Please be objective as possible in your arguments. |
 |
 dis guna b gud |
 |
| When little kids start shooting each other (accidentally) That is the time to ban those murdering objects. Really shit like this only happens in America. |
 .. |
| We already have this thread. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
QueenJenny said: We already have this thread. Mind linking me to it? |
|
johnyjohny said: When little kids start shooting each other (accidentally) That is the time to ban those murdering objects. Really shit like this only happens in America. Or you know... maybe put an age restriction on it? Kind of ridiculous that there's an age limit on tobacco, alcohol, and driving, but not on guns. I voted no btw. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
| I don't think it's possible to ban guns in America, the fact is that America like many other countries in the world has a gun culture, people feel it's their right to own weapons to protect themselves, I don't think that right should be taken away from them if they really value it that much. On the flip-side - having a gun culture automatically means more gun crime, I feel much safer roaming the streets here in Britain than I did on my excursions to America, just seeing people carrying fire-arms so casually freaked me out when I was there. The thing is, without guns you're open to coercion, the state can coerce you in any way it sees fit without you fighting back, you're basically emasculated - but of course that shouldn't matter because the state provides you with effective policing right? I've heard some people compare it to fire extinguishers - i.e. if the state provides people with effective fire fighting services then clearly they have no need for fire extinguishers in their homes because they can be dangerous if misused. The answer to the question really depends on the society you live in. |
Goryo said: Yea well do you remember that guy shooting 20 little kids on some school. Humanity needs to be protected against them self. I mean c'mon how is it every time i read the paper something horrible which involved shooting always happen in the US.johnyjohny said: When little kids start shooting each other (accidentally) That is the time to ban those murdering objects. Really shit like this only happens in America. Or you know... maybe put an age restriction on it? Kind of ridiculous that there's an age limit on tobacco, alcohol, and driving, but not on guns. I voted no btw. |
| .. |
| Well, what do you think since they are spending 1 trillion $ / year on the military budget? |
 |
Goryo said: johnyjohny said: When little kids start shooting each other (accidentally) That is the time to ban those murdering objects. Really shit like this only happens in America. Or you know... maybe put an age restriction on it? Kind of ridiculous that there's an age limit on tobacco, alcohol, and driving, but not on guns. I voted no btw. Read the OP in this thread: http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=594531 In this instance, your proposed idea of an age restriction wouldn't have any effect. Irresponsible parents buying their Son a rifle for a birthday... they may meet the age requirements physically, but for all we know they could be mentally retarded. Sense_of_Humour said: Well, what do you think since they are spending 1 trillion $ / year on the military budget? We're talking guns for civilians here, those enrolled in the army don't count. apatch3 said: I don't think it's possible to ban guns in America, the fact is that America like many other countries in the world has a gun culture, people feel it's their right to own weapons to protect themselves, I don't think that right should be taken away from them if they really value it that much. On the flip-side - having a gun culture automatically means more gun crime, I feel much safer roaming the streets here in Britain than I did on my excursions to America, just seeing people carrying fire-arms so casually freaked me out when I was there. The thing is, without guns you're open to coercion, the state can coerce you in any way it sees fit without you fighting back, you're basically emasculated - but of course that shouldn't matter because the state provides you with effective policing right? I've heard some people compare it to fire extinguishers - i.e. if the state provides people with effective fire fighting services then clearly they have no need for fire extinguishers in their homes because they can be dangerous if misused. The answer to the question really depends on the society you live in. Considering the US is one of (or the?) most developed countries in the world, why is there still a need for guns? And even if it's a consensus value, is it really worth all the deaths it brings? |
spyrocootMay 4, 2013 5:33 AM
|
spyrocoot said: Goryo said: johnyjohny said: When little kids start shooting each other (accidentally) That is the time to ban those murdering objects. Really shit like this only happens in America. Or you know... maybe put an age restriction on it? Kind of ridiculous that there's an age limit on tobacco, alcohol, and driving, but not on guns. I voted no btw. Read the OP in this thread: http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=594531 In this instance, your proposed idea of an age restriction wouldn't have any effect. Irresponsible parents buying their Son a rifle for a birthday... they may meet the age requirements physically, but for all we know they could be mentally retarded. Ok? That's like saying putting an age restriction on driving doesn't have any effect if the parents buy a car for the kids 5th birthday. The purpose of a law is to dissuade someone from doing something. There will always be idiots that break it. If a kid is found to have access to a gun, then a law should be in place that makes the parents suffer legal consequences. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Goryo said: Ok? That's like saying putting an age restriction on driving doesn't have any effect if the parents buy a car for the kids 5th birthday. The purpose of a law is to dissuade someone from doing something. There will always be idiots that break it. If a kid is found to have access to a gun, then a law should be in place that makes the parents suffer legal consequences. The problem with using a car as an example is that a young child is very unlikely to be able to operate it whereas a gun is a lot easier to use. But yes, your thinking is correct. Laws regarding age restrictions are easily overcome with irresponsible adults, which is the point I was initially making. And yes, the consequences should be very severe to act as a disincentive. |
spyrocootMay 4, 2013 5:53 AM
|
| I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. |
| わたしはりんごがすきです. あなた は バカ です :3 |
YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. The idea isn't to rid the US of guns completely, but to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns, and harder for those with murderous intent to kill other people. Your argument is pretty much, "If we can't solve it completely, why even try?". |
|
spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. The idea isn't to rid the US of guns completely, it's to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and harder for those with murderous intent to kill other people. Your argument is pretty much, "If we can't solve it completely, why even try?". Your thread title is contradictory to what you're saying. A more fitting title would be "Should gun regulation be increased in the U.S.?" |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. You say you live in the UK, which is a counter example to that dumbass theory you posted right afterwards. You got smarts. |
Goryo said: spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. The idea isn't to rid the US of guns completely, it's to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and harder for those with murderous intent to kill other people. Your argument is pretty much, "If we can't solve it completely, why even try?". Your thread title is contradictory to what you're saying. A more fitting title would be "Should gun regulation be increased in the U.S.?" No, it's just my point was poorly worded. I meant that even if guns do get banned, there will still be people who acquire guns through the black market. However, it means that it's much more difficult for anyone with ill intent to acquire guns. I did originally consider adding an option in the poll similar to what you quoted, but I'm pretty sure everyone would just agree that gun regulation should be increased, so there wouldn't be much to discuss. |
|
| Banned completely? Hell no. Stricter laws? Yes. |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
| I voted no. At this rate the US will degenerate into Mad Max style anarchy in a few decades. For the rest of the world, just lean back and enjoy the show. |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
spyrocoot said: Goryo said: spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. The idea isn't to rid the US of guns completely, it's to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and harder for those with murderous intent to kill other people. Your argument is pretty much, "If we can't solve it completely, why even try?". Your thread title is contradictory to what you're saying. A more fitting title would be "Should gun regulation be increased in the U.S.?" No, it's just my point was poorly worded. I meant that even if guns do get banned, there will still be people who acquire guns through the black market. However, it means that it's much more difficult for anyone with ill intent to acquire guns. How exactly would one go about banning guns anyway? You'd have to call in the army, and every cop to simultaneously seize pretty much every legal, traceable gun for starters. Else you run the risk of news escaping that the government is taking over and becoming a tyranny, which would lead to perhaps community wide stand-offs (in places like Kentucky) Although, to be honest, such a wide scale seizure would surely be leaked beforehand, which would essentially eliminate the advantage it would supposedly grant. Second, there would be massive political implications. The main reason the second amendment was implemented was as a way to keep the government "in check". If the government rescinds that amendment, how do you think the people will take it? Hint: not good. Third, the ones you will have to start worrying about (if you do not seize every traceable gun practically simultaneously) are the people who legally obtained their guns, and not the criminal psychopaths you wish to suppress/subvert. You can bet that they won't relinquish them peacefully, as most people who own firearms would argue that this is the reason the second amendment exists. in order to prevent the government from becoming too... governing. tl;dr shit would hit the fan if you banned guns (think 2nd civil war). It would do more harm than good. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Goryo said: spyrocoot said: Goryo said: spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. The idea isn't to rid the US of guns completely, it's to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and harder for those with murderous intent to kill other people. Your argument is pretty much, "If we can't solve it completely, why even try?". Your thread title is contradictory to what you're saying. A more fitting title would be "Should gun regulation be increased in the U.S.?" No, it's just my point was poorly worded. I meant that even if guns do get banned, there will still be people who acquire guns through the black market. However, it means that it's much more difficult for anyone with ill intent to acquire guns. How exactly would one go about banning guns anyway? You'd have to call in the army, and every cop to simultaneously seize pretty much every legal, traceable gun for starters. Else you run the risk of news escaping that the government is taking over and becoming a tyranny, which would lead to perhaps community wide stand-offs (in places like Kentucky) Although, to be honest, such a wide scale seizure would surely be leaked beforehand, which would essentially eliminate the advantage it would supposedly grant. Second, there would be massive political implications. The main reason the second amendment was implemented was as a way to keep the government "in check". If the government rescinds that amendment, how do you think the people will take it? Hint: not good. Third, the ones you will have to start worrying about (if you do not seize every traceable gun practically simultaneously) are the people who legally obtained their guns, and not the criminal psychopaths you wish to suppress/subvert. You can bet that they won't relinquish them peacefully, as most people who own firearms would argue that this is the reason the second amendment exists. in order to prevent the government from becoming too... governing. tl;dr shit would hit the fan if you banned guns (think 2nd civil war). It would do more harm than good. In regards to how the banning actually happens, I'm not exactly sure. I'd imagine that every person with a proven history of purchasing a gun must relinquish it, or face legal consequences. Admittedly, it would be a lot more difficult to get people who acquired guns illegally to relinquish them. Perhaps a law that anyone who is seen to be in possession of a gun faces legal consequences? As for the Second Amendment, it's dated. It isn't the Wild West anymore. However, I'm sure a lot of 'MURICANS will disagree with me here. Obviously banning guns will do some harm in the short term, but I think the long term benefits make it worthwhile. |
|
spyrocoot said: Goryo said: spyrocoot said: Goryo said: spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: I live in the UK and I oppose the idea of banning guns. If you do then guns will simply be sold on the black market and violent crime will increase. The idea isn't to rid the US of guns completely, it's to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and harder for those with murderous intent to kill other people. Your argument is pretty much, "If we can't solve it completely, why even try?". Your thread title is contradictory to what you're saying. A more fitting title would be "Should gun regulation be increased in the U.S.?" No, it's just my point was poorly worded. I meant that even if guns do get banned, there will still be people who acquire guns through the black market. However, it means that it's much more difficult for anyone with ill intent to acquire guns. How exactly would one go about banning guns anyway? You'd have to call in the army, and every cop to simultaneously seize pretty much every legal, traceable gun for starters. Else you run the risk of news escaping that the government is taking over and becoming a tyranny, which would lead to perhaps community wide stand-offs (in places like Kentucky) Although, to be honest, such a wide scale seizure would surely be leaked beforehand, which would essentially eliminate the advantage it would supposedly grant. Second, there would be massive political implications. The main reason the second amendment was implemented was as a way to keep the government "in check". If the government rescinds that amendment, how do you think the people will take it? Hint: not good. Third, the ones you will have to start worrying about (if you do not seize every traceable gun practically simultaneously) are the people who legally obtained their guns, and not the criminal psychopaths you wish to suppress/subvert. You can bet that they won't relinquish them peacefully, as most people who own firearms would argue that this is the reason the second amendment exists. in order to prevent the government from becoming too... governing. tl;dr shit would hit the fan if you banned guns (think 2nd civil war). It would do more harm than good. In regards to how the banning actually happens, I'm not exactly sure. I'd imagine that every person with a proven history of purchasing a gun must relinquish it, or face legal consequences. Admittedly, it would be a lot more difficult to get people who acquired guns illegally to relinquish them. Perhaps a law that anyone who is seen to be in possession of a gun faces legal consequences? As for the Second Amendment, it's dated. It isn't the Wild West anymore. However, I'm sure a lot of 'MURICANS will disagree with me here. Obviously banning guns will do some harm in the short term, but I think the long term benefits make it worthwhile. But guns don't kill people, people kill guns and you can't restrict people from buying a product...Just like you can't ban use of pepper spray which could fall into the wrong hands and harm other people |
| わたしはりんごがすきです. あなた は バカ です :3 |
YuiLovesUi said: But guns don't kill people, people kill guns. Yessss. |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Ghostony said: YuiLovesUi said: But guns don't kill people, people kill guns. Yessss. I prefer to kill my victims by filling their lungs with carbon hydroxide |
| わたしはりんごがすきです. あなた は バカ です :3 |
YuiLovesUi said: But guns don't kill people, people kill guns and you can't restrict people from buying a product...Just like you can't ban use of pepper spray which could fall into the wrong hands and harm other people People find it far easier to kill other people with a gun than without one. Think about it: a man suffering from suicidal depression in America could walk into a shopping centre and could take out 30 or so innocents with little effort. He probably couldn't do that without a gun. As for pepper spray, the worst that could happen is you could blind someone. I'd rather be blind than dead. Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. YuiLovesUi said: I prefer to kill my victims by filling their lungs with carbon hydroxide lol... |
|
spyrocoot said: In regards to how the banning actually happens, I'm not exactly sure. I'd imagine that every person with a proven history of purchasing a gun must relinquish it, or face legal consequences. Admittedly, it would be a lot more difficult to get people who acquired guns illegally to relinquish them. Perhaps a law that anyone who is seen to be in possession of a gun faces legal consequences? As for the Second Amendment, it's dated. It isn't the Wild West anymore. However, I'm sure a lot of 'MURICANS will disagree with me here. Obviously banning guns will do some harm in the short term, but I think the long term benefits make it worthwhile. It might seem dated to you, but the fact remains that people will still take it the wrong way if the second amendment is revoked. They will start feeling repressed by the gov't. There would need to be a massive amount of public support for the second amendment to be repealed if we want this to end somewhat peacefully, and until then I don't think it's gonna happen. If it happens at all, it'll be progressive. First comes the kinda strict regulations... then a couple more mass murders happen... then come the stricter regulations... then some more mass murders happen... and public opinion changes with the generations, until we manage to ban guns. There are obviously a lot more factors at play here, but that's basically my prediction for how this will all play out in the future. It will not happen soon. That much is for sure. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
spyrocoot said: Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. So you can restrict the poor.. but not middleclass and higher. spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: I prefer to kill my victims by filling their lungs with carbon hydroxide lol... #ninja |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
spyrocoot said: YuiLovesUi said: But guns don't kill people, people kill guns and you can't restrict people from buying a product...Just like you can't ban use of pepper spray which could fall into the wrong hands and harm other people People find it far easier to kill other people with a gun than without one. Think about it: a man suffering from suicidal depression in America could walk into a shopping centre and could take out 30 or so innocents with little effort. He probably couldn't do that without a gun. As for pepper spray, the worst that could happen is you could blind someone. I'd rather be blind than dead. Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. YuiLovesUi said: I prefer to kill my victims by filling their lungs with carbon hydroxide lol... Well then just tax the guns to hell but don't restrict it because it will only spark an increase in violent crimes because youths want that 'thrill' of breaking the law by having a gun. Also being blind is bad.Very bad. |
| わたしはりんごがすきです. あなた は バカ です :3 |
Ghostony said: spyrocoot said: Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. So you can restrict the poor.. but not middleclass and higher. In the example I posted, the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods... so they don't really lose out anyway. But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. |
|
spyrocoot said: the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods.. Bull But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. YuiLovesUi said: youths want that 'thrill' of breaking the law by having a gun. True. Laws don't really interfere with people who were breaking them to begin with. Also being blind is bad.Very bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q2wZFx7s30 |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Ghostony said: spyrocoot said: the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods.. Bull But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. YuiLovesUi said: youths want that 'thrill' of breaking the law by having a gun. True. Laws don't really interfere with people who were breaking them to begin with. Also being blind is bad.Very bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q2wZFx7s30 BULL - The middle classes drink and smoke THE MOST, they have the sort of disposable income to throw around on fine wines and heavily taxed cigarettes. |
spyrocoot said: Ghostony said: spyrocoot said: Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. So you can restrict the poor.. but not middleclass and higher. In the example I posted, the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods... so they don't really lose out anyway. But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. Such a blatant attempt at restricting the poor (who are more prone to being violent with guns) would only serve to incite them even more. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
apatch3 said: Ghostony said: spyrocoot said: the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods.. Bull But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. YuiLovesUi said: youths want that 'thrill' of breaking the law by having a gun. True. Laws don't really interfere with people who were breaking them to begin with. Also being blind is bad.Very bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q2wZFx7s30 BULL - The middle classes drink and smoke THE MOST, they have the sort of disposable income to throw around on fine wines and heavily taxed cigarettes. I didn't factor fine wine in with alcohol because fine wine is more of a "normal" or "luxury" good whereas alcohol is just an "inferior" good. As for cigarettes, low-income earners consume the most. However, obviously the middle class consumers buy the more expensive types of cigars. |
|
Goryo said: spyrocoot said: Ghostony said: spyrocoot said: Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. So you can restrict the poor.. but not middleclass and higher. In the example I posted, the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods... so they don't really lose out anyway. But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. Such a blatant attempt at restricting the poor (who are more prone to being violent with guns) would only serve to incite them even more. I wasn't suggesting that the US should heavily tax guns, I was simply disproving Yui's idea that you cannot restrict a consumer from buying a product. |
|
| US gun laws are stupid and frankly insane. 300 million guns or something? That's incredible stupid, what I hate the most is how fake that country is, for example when some guy goes into a school and shoots a bunch of kids, you see all the politicians come out with their fake sympathy, the US seems to be a very cold place, nobody gives a damn about these people who died from gun violence, the people in charge sure as hell don't, its all fake. If people really cared, the laws would be tougher. In other countries where something like this happened the laws have always been made tough, the US can't even have a debate on it. In the UK where I live, even the police aren't allowed to carry guns, there is a special part of the police force which doesn't go out on patrol, which is allowed for emergencies, and the members of that have very strict use of their weapons, every time one of them fires their weapon it is investigated. And of course there are even stricter laws surrounding civilian ownership and you know I feel far safer in the knowledge that their is no weapon like that in my home. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
| ohohoh 50/50 on the votes. I personally think they should be. What do people actually use guns for? Shooting at the range to become better at shooting at the range? Or shooting people? Or shooting animals? None of it is very productive at all. |
| "He's not dead, he's Katsura." |
spyrocoot said: Goryo said: spyrocoot said: Ghostony said: spyrocoot said: Oh, and yes, you can restrict people from buying a product. Think of demerit goods such as cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Both are heavily taxed, so consumers are restricted in that sense. So you can restrict the poor.. but not middleclass and higher. In the example I posted, the middle class don't tend to buy cigarettes and alcohol as they are considered "inferior" goods... so they don't really lose out anyway. But yes, the taxes on demerit goods have the biggest effect on low-income consumers. There are other forms of restrictions, too (such as age). Demerit goods was just the example that first came to mind. Such a blatant attempt at restricting the poor (who are more prone to being violent with guns) would only serve to incite them even more. I wasn't suggesting that the US should heavily tax guns, I was simply disproving Yui's idea that you cannot restrict a consumer from buying a product. Oh I didn't see his post. I agree with you though, increasing taxes simply to dissuade someone from buying something will not work. If somebody wants to shoot up a school, the price won't matter to them, as they most likely consider their life forfeit anyway. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
spyrocoot said: Do you think guns should be banned in the US - yes or no? Personally, I think they should be banned for all uses other than hunting. Please be objective as possible in your arguments. If guns were ban for everything but hunting this would not change anything at all. Now it could restrict certain types of guns from being purchased, but even hunting rifles are dangerous when it comes to unarmed citizens, although there is a plus in that they would be much more difficult to conceal. There is a definite need for reform in the United States when it comes to gun laws. There needs to be more emphasis on background checks, especially medical history, gun shows need to be enforced to adhere to these laws (they are essentially exempt as it stands now), and purchasing a firearm quite frankly should require you to take training in it's use and safety if it is your first purchase, and certain weapons should not be purchasable. You will never convince me someone needs any type of automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle, any type of armor piercing round, or most types of shotguns. At any rate all of those are my opinions so take them as you will. apatch3 said: On the flip-side - having a gun culture automatically means more gun crime, I feel much safer roaming the streets here in Britain than I did on my excursions to America, just seeing people carrying fire-arms so casually freaked me out when I was there. Ummm...huh? How many gun toting citizens did you see in the United States? Its really not a common occurrence to run into a citizen carrying around a gun, at least that's been the experience of my 20+ years living here. The exception being the country cities, especially in the South, or where hunting is popular, but even then you might see them in a vehicle, usually not just being carried around. johnyjohny said: When little kids start shooting each other (accidentally) That is the time to ban those murdering objects. Really shit like this only happens in America. This is a problem with parenting not with gun laws. A child should not have access to a gun and especially when unsupervised and it's not as if a 5 year old can go buy one. Instead, parents making oh so smart decisions, give their children guns and leave them in accessible area's (and loaded) for whatever ignorant reasons. It's pure stupidity on the part of parents, but I don't think this advocates changes in current law in particular. You wouldn't leave rat poison out where a child can reach it, medicine, let your baby play around stairs, give your child matches or a lighter etc....the same with guns. People shouldn't do it, but they're idiots. The law can't fix stupid. Nicole said: US gun laws are stupid and frankly insane. 300 million guns or something? That's incredible stupid, what I hate the most is how fake that country is, for example when some guy goes into a school and shoots a bunch of kids, you see all the politicians come out with their fake sympathy, the US seems to be a very cold place, nobody gives a damn about these people who died from gun violence, the people in charge sure as hell don't, its all fake. If people really cared, the laws would be tougher. In other countries where something like this happened the laws have always been made tough, the US can't even have a debate on it. In the UK where I live, even the police aren't allowed to carry guns, there is a special part of the police force which doesn't go out on patrol, which is allowed for emergencies, and the members of that have very strict use of their weapons, every time one of them fires their weapon it is investigated. And of course there are even stricter laws surrounding civilian ownership and you know I feel far safer in the knowledge that their is no weapon like that in my home. I usually don't mind your post, but this one is quite frankly terrible and ill informed. There are debates on guns all the time, but we live in a democratic society. That means bills must be passed by majority support. I do not advocate a ban on guns myself. I am not a cold man nor uncaring. Nor do I think most Americans actually are. People look at this issue like it's black and white, ban them or not, but nothing is ever quite that simple. When people speak of outright banning guns, they compare the US to countries like the UK, which is not a valid comparison by any means for a variety of reasons. For one, just as an example, the murder rate per capita is much higher in the US than the UK. There is no disputing this. However, when you actually look at crime statistics, you find that majority of violent crime (especially gun related violence) occurs in cities of 250k+ by staggering margin in percentages, in both countries. Now when you actually compare the 250k+ cities in both countries you find that the US has far more, which stands to reason that it would have a higher gun related crime rate based on that fact. The point of this is, if a large percent of crime occurs in specific area's (cities, typically poor area's) then guns are not the actual problem, but instead what causes crime should be addressed. I'm not saying gun reform does not need to happen (as indicated above) because it does, but there are a variety of reasons a straight out ban on guns would not work (especially removing them from the police force....horrible idea). There are some things that are so engrained into a country, that they simply can not be gotten rid of. Guns are one of those things in the United States. Alcohol is another, except much of the civilized world shares that problem. But there is a growing number of people who are pushing for more regulation and gun control and imo that will continue as the years progress until eventually they are the majority. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf ^that is a very interesting read. While I do not agree with all of it, I do enjoy the fact they site all their sources. |
rekindledflameMay 4, 2013 7:53 AM
| |
| No. They should not (or perhaps I should say that they cannot). Better regulation of firearms is however seriously needed considering the recent spree of shootings. spyrocoot said: In regards to how the banning actually happens, I'm not exactly sure. I'd imagine that every person with a proven history of purchasing a gun must relinquish it, or face legal consequences. Admittedly, it would be a lot more difficult to get people who acquired guns illegally to relinquish them. Perhaps a law that anyone who is seen to be in possession of a gun faces legal consequences? That's insane. You do not get rid of guns in one of the most gun loving nation on Earth by making a law banning it overnight. That would cause shitstorms the size of Australia. |
| The Art of Eight |
Nicole said: America isn't the only country with "fake" politicians lol US gun laws are stupid and frankly insane. 300 million guns or something? That's incredible stupid, what I hate the most is how fake that country is, for example when some guy goes into a school and shoots a bunch of kids, you see all the politicians come out with their fake sympathy Nicole said: Of course the politicians don't give a damn, it's in their nature to parrot whatever will garner them the greatest number of votes.the US seems to be a very cold place, nobody gives a damn about these people who died from gun violence, the people in charge sure as hell don't, its all fake. Nicole said: If people really cared, the laws would be tougher. It's not that people don't care, it's a lot more complex than that. First of all, the right to bear arms is one of the principles our country was founded on. Second, people will perhaps feel sad or sorry for the victims, but in their minds, owning a gun would be a surefire way to prevent something like that from happening to them. It is not that the majority of people in America are cold, but a lot of people see guns as a means of defense against other guns, and are therefore reluctant to vote in favor of any laws that restrict guns. After all, would a crazy gunman have any regard for the laws that were in place? Nicole said: In other countries where something like this happened the laws have always been made tough Im not familiar with the UK, but the political climate concerning guns is vastly different I'm sure. In America, most people think owning a gun is natural and their "god given right". Surely it was easier to prevent civilians from obtaining or owning guns in the UK, since that wasn't one of the things the country(s) was founded on. Nicole said: the US can't even have a debate on it. We do every single day Nicole said: And of course there are even stricter laws surrounding civilian ownership and you know I feel far safer in the knowledge that their is no weapon like that in my home. conversely, some people feel safer with them in their home. |
GoryoMay 4, 2013 7:38 AM
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
| Guns should be banned on earth. |
| Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Here is an expert analysis on the Second Amendment that takes into account both the diction and the intent: The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.” (Roy Cupperud) Basically, the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right (like you mentioned, arms of every description can fall into that category). The Founding Fathers upheld this natural right for the sole purpose of maintaining the sovereignty of the individual. This maintenance of sovereignty can be in the form of personal defense during a crime, or in the form of defending against suppressive entities (ex – foreign invasion, rogue domestic government). “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson) “And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson) So, although arms of any description is implied in the Second Amendment, natural rights come into play when it comes to the types of arms one can posses. The principles of the Constitution were drawn from Locke’s ideas of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Here comes into play the rights of sef-defense and being unmolested. If one has the right to own, then one also has the right to assert ownership (aka protect) over that which is yours. The right of self-defense derives from this right. If one has the right to self-defense, then one has the right to have the effective tools and ability to exercise that right (to self-defense). The right to be umolested stems from the fact that liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others. One has the right of quiet enjoyment of his/her property as so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. This means that one cannot disturb/molest another. These two rights combine to dictate that: One has the right to self-defense (and, naturally, the effective tools/means to exercise that right), and one may not disturb those who are not infringing on your right to be unmolested first. Therefore, any arms kept or borne must be able to discriminate between those who are infringing upon your rights and those who are innocent and have nothing to do with the exchange. Basically, the arms must be capable of being directed against the attacker without jeopardizing the rights of the innocent (no RPGs and such) TL;DR Here is a summary of what I am trying to say lol: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) Ownership of being creates a responsibility for its general welfare. 3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit of securing one's general welfare. 4) Efficient self-defense most capably sees to one's general welfare. 5) Firearms represent an efficient tool for self-defense. Following from that: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. Try to refute that. |
RandomChampion said: Try to refute that. I don't think anyone would be against people owning muskets for self-defense, nobody could of predicted the destructive power of modern day weapons, trying to imply a 200 year old law in this instance is insanity. Why arent only hand guns legal, why do people need more powerful weapons than that. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
| @RekindledFlame I saw quite a few gun users in the states, I forget which state I was in at the time but state laws basically said you could keep a firearm as long as you kept it exposed, i.e. as long as it wasn't hidden, so you'd get all these guys with revolvers slung around their waists, before we learned that this was normal it was actually quite scary XD |
Did you really just copy and paste an analysis of the Second Amendment from some gun advocate? The fact that the Second Amendment is extremely outdated in this day and age pretty much refutes it. We aren't living in the Wild West anymore. |
|
RandomChampion said: Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” US militia were mostly crappy though with some exceptions. Stonewall Jackson's militiamen were pretty good. Good thing the Root reforms fixed all of that crap. |
| The Art of Eight |
Nicole said: RandomChampion said: Try to refute that. I don't think anyone would be against people owning muskets for self-defense, nobody could of predicted the destructive power of modern day weapons, trying to imply a 200 year old law in this instance is insanity. Why arent only hand guns legal, why do people need more powerful weapons than that. Because the second amendment isn't just to protect yourself from others, but it also implies you have the right to protect yourself from excessive government coercion. Of course you could argue that they don't live in the Wild West anymore and all such notions are outdated but I can understand why people feel so strongly about the need to bear arms. It's a shame though, I mean the price you pay for bearing arms is around 3000 gun deaths every year. |
| Well, let me give you one example of why civilians owning guns is good: Hitler didn't invade the U.S. because tactically, it would be a bad decision because a lot of the civilians owned guns of their own. Therefore, German casualty numbers would be higher than in any of his previously attempted invasions. You want to know why people don't just invade the U.S.? A lot of the civilians are armed with firearms. |
| my avatar is the bus driver from Rosario + Vampire |
apatch3 said: Nicole said: RandomChampion said: Try to refute that. I don't think anyone would be against people owning muskets for self-defense, nobody could of predicted the destructive power of modern day weapons, trying to imply a 200 year old law in this instance is insanity. Why arent only hand guns legal, why do people need more powerful weapons than that. Because the second amendment isn't just to protect yourself from others, but it also implies you have the right to protect yourself from excessive government coercion. Of course you could argue that they don't live in the Wild West anymore and all such notions are outdated but I can understand why people feel so strongly about the need to bear arms. It's a shame though, I mean the price you pay for bearing arms is around 3000 gun deaths every year. Actually, there are 30,000 gun related deaths in the US every year. monster7foot6 said: Well, let me give you one example of why civilians owning guns is good: Hitler didn't invade the U.S. because tactically, it would be a bad decision because a lot of the civilians owned guns of their own. Therefore, German casualty numbers would be higher than in any of his previously attempted invasions. You want to know why people don't just invade the U.S.? A lot of the civilians are armed with firearms. Hitler didn't invade the US because it isn't a part of central Europe. They invaded countries like Poland so they could expand their territory as it was right next to them. |
spyrocootMay 4, 2013 10:14 AM
|
More topics from this board
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - Apr 22 |
31 |
by cody
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
67 |
by 3miL
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - Apr 19 |
30 |
by rohan121
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » What is your average step count? [Poll] Do you think that you should take more steps?Miscanthus - 12 hours ago |
16 |
by traed
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - Apr 24 |
23 |
by cody
»»
2 hours ago |